On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Michael Meissner <meiss...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:45:54AM +0400, Kostya Serebryany wrote: >> Many thanks, Jakub. >> >> I don't want to appear in this situation again. >> Would you suggest a place to create a wiki page which would list all >> required steps to test libsanitizer? >> >> libsanitizer is (unfortunately) a very system-dependent beast and our >> upstream commits will break other platforms regularly; >> that's unavoidable unless each platform's community helps us test the >> code upstream. (I.e. I encourage PowerPC folks to help us in the LLVM >> land) > > Maybe it should be removed completely then, if you are going to break things > on > a regular basis. Or at least made a configuration option that is OFF by > default. Or kept in a branch.
Ok, unless someone commits to support libsanitizer for PowerPC in gcc repository I am going to disable it before the next merge. --kcc > >> For gcc merges, all we can promise to do is to run any amount of >> testing (described on a to-be-created wiki) on an x86_64 linux >> machine. >> For other kinds of testing we'll rely on the platform owners. >> If we break someone's platform, we expect the owners to send us >> patches which we can commit upstream. That's what happened with x32 >> last week. > > NO, NO, NO, NO. We have the GCC compile farm for a reason. Use it to test > system dependent changes before committing them to the trunk. > > I have too much on my plate that I'm scrambling to get my changes done before > stage1 closes. I don't have time or engery to fix code that other people > broke. > > I'm sorry, but I'm really getting annoyed by the length of time it has taken > to > get this resolved. > > -- > Michael Meissner, IBM > IBM, M/S 2506R, 550 King Street, Littleton, MA 01460, USA > email: meiss...@linux.vnet.ibm.com, phone: +1 (978) 899-4797 >