On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 at 20:37, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 at 00:06, Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think if you're going to reject this patch, a brief comment should
> > be added to that code to justify why that existing superfluous check
> > is worthwhile.
>
> It seems strange to add a comment to explain why it's there. If we're
> going to the trouble of doing that, then we should just remove it and
> add a very small comment to mention why INT8 sequences don't need to
> be checked.
Any thoughts on this, Greg?
David
