Carlo Arenas <carenas@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > * code is suspiciously similar to one[2] that was rejected, but > hopefully commit message is better > ... > [2] https://public-inbox.org/git/20181209230024.43444-3-carenas@xxxxxxxxx/ I do not recall ever rejecting that one. It did not come with a good proposed log message to be accepted as-is, so I do not find it surprising that I did not pick it up, was waiting for a new iteration and then everybody forgot about it. But that is quite different from getting rejected (with the connotation that "don't attempt this bad idea again, unless the world changes drastically"). In any case, this round looks a lot more reasoned. I personally do not think the warning() is a good idea. As I said in the old discussion, we by default should treat JIT as a mere optimization, and we should stay out of the way most of the time. An additional "must have JIT or we will die" [*1*] can be added on top of this change, if somebody really cares. Thanks. [Reference] *1* https://public-inbox.org/git/87pnu9yekk.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
