Hi,
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, Joe Buck wrote:
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 11:34:33AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
I'd welcome the issue be addressed by the SC. I'd favor more timely
reviews. Maybe auto approval for a patch that sits for more than a
week? :-)
I see your smilie, Mike, but GCC
I actually like the existing behaviour, which I'm pretty sure hasn't
changed for many years. I often find myself typing
Hum, I think I need another patch.
Paolo
Eric Botcazou writes:
I actually like the existing behaviour, which I'm pretty sure hasn't
changed for many years.
Eric It has, at least for make quickstrap.
Yes, exactly. Prior to the top-level bootstrap changes, I
explicitly would need to use make CFLAGS=-g to recompile a
Dan == Daniel Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dan It can also tell you who to copy on a ping email to make sure it
Dan actually goes to a maintainer.
Dan the interface is under construction, but okay for casual use.
Dan http://www.dberlin.org/patches/patches/maintainer_list/745 would be the
Dan
You can't put new features and bug fixes in the same basket. They can even be
viewed as steering the compiler in opposite directions quality-wise. If you
don't want to increase the patches-per-day ratio, the only solution is to
prioritize bug fixes over new features. For example we could
On 15/06/06, Mike Stump [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For example, would be nice to have a batch tester that
would bootstrap and regression test on 2-5 platforms for all patch
submitters post approval but pre-checkin. If any regressions, dump
all patches and move on to the next set, repeat as fast
On 14/06/06, Eric Botcazou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For example we could introduce
secondary maintainers with approval rights for bug fixes only or something
along these lines.
Or the secondary maintainers could review patches and reject them but
not approve them for commit. They may add
On Jun 15, 2006, at 2:34 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
I am new to the project so please don't take me too seriously if I am
saying some dumb thing: why review a patch that doesn't pass bootstrap
and check?
This is not usually an issue. Yes most people will only test one target
but that is
On 15/06/06, Andrew Pinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 2:34 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
I am new to the project so please don't take me too seriously if I am
saying some dumb thing: why review a patch that doesn't pass bootstrap
and check?
This is not usually an issue.
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote on 06/15/06 05:34:
I mean, there is a patch queue, you put your patch or patch
set in the queue, it gets bootstrapped and tested as you said on 2-5
patforms, then either it passes and a notification is send to the
Actually, the patch queue only stores the patches.
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 03:57:05PM +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
Mike Stump proposed a batch tester that
would bootstrap and regression test on 2-5 platforms for all patch
submitters post approval but pre-checkin. My point is that a batch
tester post-approval is just wasting reviewers
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 01:03:17PM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote on 06/15/06 05:34:
I mean, there is a patch queue, you put your patch or patch
set in the queue, it gets bootstrapped and tested as you said on 2-5
patforms, then either it passes and a notification
On 6/15/06, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 01:03:17PM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote on 06/15/06 05:34:
I mean, there is a patch queue, you put your patch or patch
set in the queue, it gets bootstrapped and tested as you said on 2-5
On 15 June 2006 18:09, Joe Buck wrote:
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 01:03:17PM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote on 06/15/06 05:34:
I mean, there is a patch queue, you put your patch or patch
set in the queue, it gets bootstrapped and tested as you said on 2-5
patforms, then
On 6/15/06, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right, but Manuel was commenting on Mike Stump's proposal, wondering
why Mike proposed to run the bootstrap tests *after* reviewer approval
instead of before.
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 07:12:38PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
It might be a
Diego Novillo wrote:
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote on 06/15/06 05:34:
I mean, there is a patch queue, you put your patch or patch
set in the queue, it gets bootstrapped and tested as you said on 2-5
patforms, then either it passes and a notification is send to the
Actually, the patch queue
Hello,
Diego Novillo wrote:
Manuel López-Ibá?ez wrote on 06/15/06 05:34:
I mean, there is a patch queue, you put your patch or patch
set in the queue, it gets bootstrapped and tested as you said on 2-5
patforms, then either it passes and a notification is send to the
Actually, the
I know, for example, SuSE has such a build farm that is accessible by
email (IE you email patches to it).
If they were willing to let the patchapp submit emails (or xmlrpc or
whatever), and there was a way for it to notify the patchapp about the
results (xmlrpc or http post would be
On Jun 15, 2006, at 2:34 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
Maintainers said that they are overwhelmed by the amount of work
required to review. Post-approval testing seems just a waste of time
to me.
It is, well, unless you want mainline to build and pass a regression
suite. No amount of
On 15/06/06, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is understandable. In any case, it would probably best to have
a human in the loop before submitting patches to autobuilders, both
for security reasons and as a sanity check, to avoid wasting resources
on an unacceptable patch. Machine donors
thus, the pre-review batch test was a way to avoid wasting (human)
resources on an unacceptable patch.
You are confusing the review process with whether the patch works.
To a large extent, those two issues are very different. A reviewer
will always presume the patch works and is
David Edelsohn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
Daniel On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 10:22:17AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
Typing make in the gcc subdirectory does not do what I expect.
Daniel Then could you clarify what happens, and what you expect, please?
The
I actually like the existing behaviour, which I'm pretty sure hasn't
changed for many years.
It has, at least for make quickstrap.
--
Eric Botcazou
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Daniel Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It can also tell you who to copy on a ping email to make sure it
actually goes to a maintainer.
the interface is under construction, but okay for casual use.
http://www.dberlin.org/patches/patches/maintainer_list/745 would be
Daniel Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It can also tell you who to copy on a ping email to make sure it
actually goes to a maintainer.
the interface is under construction, but okay for casual use.
http://www.dberlin.org/patches/patches/maintainer_list/745 would be the
one for this
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Daniel Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It can also tell you who to copy on a ping email to make sure it
actually goes to a maintainer.
the interface is under construction, but okay for casual use.
http://www.dberlin.org/patches/patches/maintainer_list/745 would be
Daniel Berlin wrote on 06/13/06 23:24:
Does anyone believe this would help make sure patches stop dropping
through the cracks?
Not really. Technical solutions to social problems rarely work. Patch
review is mostly a social problem. I am frequently part of the problem,
unfortunately.
On 6/14/06, Diego Novillo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daniel Berlin wrote on 06/13/06 23:24:
Does anyone believe this would help make sure patches stop dropping
through the cracks?
Not really. Technical solutions to social problems rarely work. Patch
review is mostly a social problem. I am
Diego Novillo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Daniel Berlin wrote on 06/13/06 23:24:
Does anyone believe this would help make sure patches stop dropping
through the cracks?
Not really. Technical solutions to social problems rarely work. Patch
review is mostly a social problem. I am
On Jun 13, 2006, at 8:24 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
Past the above, I have no better ideas for getting patches reviewed
other than appointing more maintainers.
I'd welcome the issue be addressed by the SC. I'd favor more timely
reviews. Maybe auto approval for a patch that sits for more than
On Jun 13, 2006, at 8:24 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
Past the above, I have no better ideas for getting patches reviewed
other than appointing more maintainers.
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 11:34:33AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
I'd welcome the issue be addressed by the SC. I'd favor more timely
On Jun 13, 2006, at 8:24 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
Past the above, I have no better ideas for getting patches reviewed
other than appointing more maintainers.
I'd welcome the issue be addressed by the SC. I'd favor more timely
reviews. Maybe auto approval for a patch that sits for
But GCC is a mature compiler, it's stable, and while it has bugs and could
be better, I'm not sure I *want* GCC to start changing much more rapidly
than it changes today. Bugs will be fixed, yes. New features will be
introduced, yes. But will the quality level be maintained?
You can't put
Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The SC mainly has negative power, it can't make people do work.
There have been a number of proposals that basically amount to threatening
the patch reviewers with negative consequences, but I'm not for that.
Certainly we can talk about mechanisms to help
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 10:16:38PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
But GCC is a mature compiler, it's stable, and while it has bugs and could
be better, I'm not sure I *want* GCC to start changing much more rapidly
than it changes today. Bugs will be fixed, yes. New features will be
On Jun 14, 2006, at 11:51 AM, Joe Buck wrote:
There have been a number of proposals that basically amount to
threatening
the patch reviewers with negative consequences, but I'm not for that.
I too think that would be the wrong direction to go.
I'm not sure I *want* GCC to start changing
An untested patch to do so is attached. You can try it and, if it
fails, there is also Rainer Orth's patch in comment #14 of the PR.
Sure, but read the date of the comment. :-)
I'm really wondering what the Patch URL field of the PR is for...
IMHO this PR is a striking example of the *major*
Eric Botcazou wrote:
An untested patch to do so is attached. You can try it and, if it
fails, there is also Rainer Orth's patch in comment #14 of the PR.
Sure, but read the date of the comment. :-)
Yes, OTOH it is the patch that I like the most...
Thanks for chiming in this
I didn't understand the purpose of:
(build/gencondmd.o): Filter out -fkeep-inline-functions.
Read the comment?
--
Eric Botcazou
Eric Botcazou wrote:
I didn't understand the purpose of:
(build/gencondmd.o): Filter out -fkeep-inline-functions.
Read the comment?
It can help indeed.
However, the audit trail of the PR seems to say that now
-fkeep-inline-functions is sort of implied by -O0; I can build
However, the audit trail of the PR seems to say that now
-fkeep-inline-functions is sort of implied by -O0; I can build
insn-conditions.md with -O0 -fkeep-inline-functions so I'm not
affected by the PR.
Comment #36 seems to say that we're back to the initial state.
--
Eric Botcazou
IMHO this PR is a striking example of the *major* problems we have been
having
in the patch reviewing department for quite some time.
I don't disagree in this case.
Not only was this patch submitted in march and not reviewed, it was even
pinged on march 29th by someone *else*.
Daniel Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It can also tell you who to copy on a ping email to make sure it
actually goes to a maintainer.
the interface is under construction, but okay for casual use.
http://www.dberlin.org/patches/patches/maintainer_list/745 would be the
one for this patch.
David Edelsohn wrote:
Mark Mitchell writes:
Mark That seems unfortunate, but so be it.
Yes it is very unfortunate and not very convenient for the way
that most developers want to use the build infrastructure. There no
longer is an equivalent to make quickstrap. To rebuild only GCC,
Paolo Bonzini writes:
Paolo So, let's please not confuse issues. I work in the GCC directory daily.
Paolo I type make there and it just works. You can even type make
Paolo quickstrap if you want:
Paolo I think this was your suggestion, and it was implemented.
Typing make in the gcc
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 10:22:17AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
Typing make in the gcc subdirectory does not do what I expect.
Then could you clarify what happens, and what you expect, please?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery
Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
Daniel On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 10:22:17AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
Typing make in the gcc subdirectory does not do what I expect.
Daniel Then could you clarify what happens, and what you expect, please?
The behavior prior to the top-level bootstrap
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
This was caused by:
2006-01-22 Zack Weinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* genautomata.c: Include vec.h, not varray.h.
The problem that Mark reported happens because (since always) the CFLAGS
of the gcc directory are just -g, not -O2 -g. Optimized builds have
Typing make in $objdir/gcc (after a bootstrap) sometimes results in
errors like:
build/gencondmd.o: In function `VEC_rtx_heap_reserve':
/net/sparrowhawk/scratch/mitchell/src/lto/gcc/rtl.h:195: undefined
reference to `vec_heap_p_reserve'
For an ordinary make the generator programs are built
This is part of the new build infrastructure. One cannot simply
go into $objdir/gcc and type make. One either needs to use the
appropriate incantation at the top-level build directory or go into
$objdir/gcc and type make CFLAGS='xxx', where 'xxx' matches the
optimization options for the
Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Typing make in $objdir/gcc (after a bootstrap) sometimes results in
| errors like:
|
| build/gencondmd.o: In function `VEC_rtx_heap_reserve':
| /net/sparrowhawk/scratch/mitchell/src/lto/gcc/rtl.h:195: undefined
| reference to `vec_heap_p_reserve'
|
|
David Edelsohn wrote:
This is part of the new build infrastructure. One cannot simply
go into $objdir/gcc and type make. One either needs to use the
appropriate incantation at the top-level build directory or go into
$objdir/gcc and type make CFLAGS='xxx', where 'xxx' matches the
Mark Mitchell writes:
Mark That seems unfortunate, but so be it.
Yes it is very unfortunate and not very convenient for the way
that most developers want to use the build infrastructure. There no
longer is an equivalent to make quickstrap. To rebuild only GCC, one
can use make
53 matches
Mail list logo
