Dataflow analysis for Cmm

[Ben Gamari]

Michal Terepeta <michal.terepeta at gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:57 AM Jan Stolarek <jan.stolarek at p.lodz.pl>
> wrote:
>
>> Second question: how could we merge this? (...)
>> I'm not sure if I understand. The end result after merging will be exactly
>> the same, right? Are
>> you asking for advice what is the best way of doing this from a technical
>> point if view? I would
>> simply edit the existing module. Introducing a temporary second module
>> seems like unnecessary
>> extra work and perhaps complicating the patch review.
>>
>
> Yes, the end result would be the same - I'm merely asking what would be
> preferred by GHC devs (i.e., I don't know how fine grained patches to GHC
> usually are).
>
It varies quite wildly. In general I would prefer fine-grained patches
(but of course atomic) over coarse patches as they are easier to
understand during review and after merge. Moreover, it's generally much
easier to squash together patches that are too fine-grained than it is
to split up a large patch, so I generally err on the side of finer
rather than coarser during development.

Cheers,

- Ben

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 454 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20161017/0b7ad3d0/attachment.sig>