Re: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-03-04)
Andrew MacLeod wrote: There are a handful I've been involved with which are labeled as 4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 regressions which I don't see ever being fixed in 4.0 through 4.2. There is perhaps some hope for 4.3, but 4.4 is the more likely case. They require new development work that I think is unlikely to ever be backported to these releases for just these testcases. Thank you very much for this email. I apologize for not acknowledging this earlier. The PRs are - 21596 I made a simple attempt at this one, but the simple approach isn't going to work. - 23200 fixed in 4.3 by the new version of TER. Unlikely to port the entire TER rewrite back to 4.2 at this stage (it could be done tho :-). This was still marked as a bug in 4.3 in the Summary section of the bug. Given that this fixed, I've removed the 4.3 marker there. In future, when you fix a bug, please remove the release from the Summary section, if you remember. (I forget too...) - 27986 This is in fact a variation of the issue in 21596, except this one crosses basic blocks. It will require all new work to get this case. - 27877 Mark Shinwell applied a patch for this to 4.3. I pinged him about applying it to 4.2. If I haven't heard from him by thursday, I will apply it friday. I think you meant 29877? In any case, thank you! I would say you can mark the first 3 as 'will not fix', or whatever you do to indicate they aren't going to be resolved in 4.2. I'm going to leave them open, but I've added a link to your message to the audit trails. Optimistically, someone might miraculously fix them, but it's very helpful to know that that's going to be unlikley. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713
Re: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-03-04)
On 06 Mar 2007 21:48:14 -0600, Gabriel Dos Reis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Manuel López-Ibáñez [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | On 06/03/07, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: | On 05/03/07, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | After reviewing all of the traffic[1] that stemmed from my previous | status report, I've decided that, indeed, it makes sense to steam ahead | with GCC 4.2.0 based on current GCC 4.2.0 release branch. | | | I ask special permission to apply this patch: | | http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-02/msg01461.html | | to GCC 4.2.0. This patch is trivial and it has been in GCC 4.3 for a | few weeks already. | | This patch is OK for 4.2.0, on the grounds that the -Walways-true option | has not yet appeared in any FSF release, and we don't want to release | the option with semantics different than what are eventually intended. | | Thanks, | | | As far as I know, it was introduced in GCC 4.2 revision 108489. | | Also: | | $ svn log svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-4_2-branch | grep -n | -e Walways.true | 63424: * gcc.dg/20031012-1.c: Add -Walways-true option. | 63978: * doc/invoke.texi (Warning Options): Document -Walways-true being | 64532: * common.opt (Walways-true): New option. | | while | | $ svn log svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-4_1-branch | grep -n | -e Walways.true | | shows nothing. I strongly encourage the removal brefore 4.2 gets out. I am bootstrapping and regression testing the backport of the patch and I will commit it and post it here as soon as it finishes. Should we mention Waddress in the GCC 4.2 release notes? Neither Wliteral-string-comparison nor Walways-true were mention. That is, should I prepare a patch? Cheers, Manuel.
Re: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-03-04)
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: | Should we mention Waddress in the GCC 4.2 release notes? Proper documentation is sufficient I believe. -- Gaby
Re: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-03-04)
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 04:13:08AM -0600, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: | Should we mention Waddress in the GCC 4.2 release notes? Proper documentation is sufficient I believe. Or the release notes could just say something like: * New warning options: -Wfoo, -Wbar (see the GCC manual for details)
Re: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-03-04)
On 05/03/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 05/03/07, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After reviewing all of the traffic[1] that stemmed from my previous status report, I've decided that, indeed, it makes sense to steam ahead with GCC 4.2.0 based on current GCC 4.2.0 release branch. I ask special permission to apply this patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-02/msg01461.html to GCC 4.2.0. This patch is trivial and it has been in GCC 4.3 for a few weeks already. It replaces two options that are introduced in GCC 4.2 with a single switch -Waddress. I think we should replace them before releasing, to minimise the effect of the change in users. Mark, Do you have an opinion about this? Whatever decision is made, I would like to delete it from my TODO list. Cheers, Manuel.
Re: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-03-04)
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: On 05/03/07, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After reviewing all of the traffic[1] that stemmed from my previous status report, I've decided that, indeed, it makes sense to steam ahead with GCC 4.2.0 based on current GCC 4.2.0 release branch. I ask special permission to apply this patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-02/msg01461.html to GCC 4.2.0. This patch is trivial and it has been in GCC 4.3 for a few weeks already. This patch is OK for 4.2.0, on the grounds that the -Walways-true option has not yet appeared in any FSF release, and we don't want to release the option with semantics different than what are eventually intended. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713
Re: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-03-04)
On 06/03/07, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: On 05/03/07, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After reviewing all of the traffic[1] that stemmed from my previous status report, I've decided that, indeed, it makes sense to steam ahead with GCC 4.2.0 based on current GCC 4.2.0 release branch. I ask special permission to apply this patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-02/msg01461.html to GCC 4.2.0. This patch is trivial and it has been in GCC 4.3 for a few weeks already. This patch is OK for 4.2.0, on the grounds that the -Walways-true option has not yet appeared in any FSF release, and we don't want to release the option with semantics different than what are eventually intended. Thanks, As far as I know, it was introduced in GCC 4.2 revision 108489. Also: $ svn log svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-4_2-branch | grep -n -e Walways.true 63424: * gcc.dg/20031012-1.c: Add -Walways-true option. 63978: * doc/invoke.texi (Warning Options): Document -Walways-true being 64532: * common.opt (Walways-true): New option. while $ svn log svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-4_1-branch | grep -n -e Walways.true shows nothing. Cheers, Manuel.
Re: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-03-04)
Manuel López-Ibáñez [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | On 06/03/07, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: | On 05/03/07, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | After reviewing all of the traffic[1] that stemmed from my previous | status report, I've decided that, indeed, it makes sense to steam ahead | with GCC 4.2.0 based on current GCC 4.2.0 release branch. | | | I ask special permission to apply this patch: | | http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-02/msg01461.html | | to GCC 4.2.0. This patch is trivial and it has been in GCC 4.3 for a | few weeks already. | | This patch is OK for 4.2.0, on the grounds that the -Walways-true option | has not yet appeared in any FSF release, and we don't want to release | the option with semantics different than what are eventually intended. | | Thanks, | | | As far as I know, it was introduced in GCC 4.2 revision 108489. | | Also: | | $ svn log svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-4_2-branch | grep -n | -e Walways.true | 63424: * gcc.dg/20031012-1.c: Add -Walways-true option. | 63978: * doc/invoke.texi (Warning Options): Document -Walways-true being | 64532: * common.opt (Walways-true): New option. | | while | | $ svn log svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-4_1-branch | grep -n | -e Walways.true | | shows nothing. I strongly encourage the removal brefore 4.2 gets out. -- Gaby
Re: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-03-04)
Mark Mitchell wrote: However, I do think that it's important to eliminate some of the 139 open P2 and P1 regressions [2], especially those P1 regressions which did not appear in GCC 4.1.x. 133, not 139. Your search url returns six P3 bugs, one of which (29441) is not even a regression. Does that count as six for my tally? :) - Brooks
Re: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-03-04)
On 05/03/07, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After reviewing all of the traffic[1] that stemmed from my previous status report, I've decided that, indeed, it makes sense to steam ahead with GCC 4.2.0 based on current GCC 4.2.0 release branch. I ask special permission to apply this patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-02/msg01461.html to GCC 4.2.0. This patch is trivial and it has been in GCC 4.3 for a few weeks already. It replaces two options that are introduced in GCC 4.2 with a single switch -Waddress. I think we should replace them before releasing, to minimise the effect of the change in users. In addition, there are two trivial doc fixes for GCC 4.2, one in invoke.texi and another in opts.c, where it says -Werror- and it should say -Werror= Can I commit them as obvious or do I need to submit a patch? Cheers, Manuel.
Re: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-03-04)
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: In addition, there are two trivial doc fixes for GCC 4.2, one in invoke.texi and another in opts.c, where it says -Werror- and it should say -Werror= Can I commit them as obvious or do I need to submit a patch? Both. :-) That is, go ahead and commit the patch but post it to the gcc-patches list as well. Gerald
