From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 63610 invoked by alias); 9 Jun 2016 17:22:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 63601 invoked by uid 89); 9 Jun 2016 17:22:24 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=breath, Everyone, his X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 09 Jun 2016 17:22:23 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4600B8916; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 17:22:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-116-42.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.116.42]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u59HMLP8032365; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 13:22:22 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add selftest for pretty-print.c (v2) To: David Edelsohn , Jakub Jelinek References: <983cf868-9e9f-71d4-3bae-09c5d0a12cbe@redhat.com> <20160609131038.GQ7387@tucnak.redhat.com> Cc: Bernd Schmidt , David Malcolm , GCC Patches From: Jeff Law Message-ID: <53de810e-6382-d36b-c95c-9b4e71ceab8d@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 17:22:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-06/txt/msg00726.txt.bz2 On 06/09/2016 07:30 AM, David Edelsohn wrote: > > The self-tests specifically abort the build and break bootstrap upon > failure. Most other changes that inadvertently have bugs or tickle a > latent issue in a target will introduce some additional testsuite > failures, not a bootstrap failure. x86 developers seem to get quite > annoyed when a patch causes a bootstrap failure for an x86 > configuration. > > Second, all of the large changes that may have unknown effects on > various targets have been tested extensively on multiple > architectures, as have most global optimization changes. It may not > be required, but it generally has been considered "good form" and has > been a stipulation of patch approval by some reviewers. It would be > very unfortunate for GCC to lower the bar for patches by some > developers and not others. Let's all calm down a bit here. Everyone here just wants to make a better compiler and mistakes happen. What I see in David Malcolm's change is a fairly minor bug. I don't think David (or anyone) could have really expected that %p is printed differently across different hosts and thus his patch would need wider host testing. And AFAICT David addressed this issue as soon as he started his day. So let's all take a deep breath and get back to improving GCC rather than taking jabs at each other. jeff