On 1/10/24 06:01, Richard Sandiford wrote:
So to get an idea for expectations: would it be a requirement that a
GCC 15 submission is enabled unconditionally and all known issues in
the ports fixed?
I don't think we need to fix those latent port issues as a hard
requirement. I try to balance the complexity of the fix, overall state
of the port, value of having the port test the feature, etc.
So something like the mn103 or ephiphany where the fix was clear after a
bit of debugging, we just fix. Others like the long standing c6x faults
or the rl78 assembler complaints which we're also seeing without the
late-combine work and which don't have clearly identifiable fixes I'd
say we leave to the port maintainers (if any) to address.
So I tend to want to understand a regression reported by the tester,
then we determine a reasonable course of action. I don't think that a
no regression policy on all those old ports is a reasonable requirement.
Jeff
