From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 59116 invoked by alias); 8 Dec 2015 16:04:46 -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 59099 invoked by uid 89); 8 Dec 2015 16:04:46 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 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; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 16:04:44 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F282F71; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 16:04:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-113-32.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.32]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id tB8G4gh3028799; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 11:04:42 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH,RFC] Introduce RUN_UNDER_VALGRIND in test-suite To: Bernd Schmidt , =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_Li=c5=a1ka?= , Hans-Peter Nilsson References: <564DDEF2.8090803@suse.cz> <5652DD92.2030202@suse.cz> <56604E93.5050805@redhat.com> <5666F723.1030603@suse.cz> <5666F843.9000004@redhat.com> Cc: GCC Patches From: Jeff Law Message-ID: <5666FF9A.2010306@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 16:04:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5666F843.9000004@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-12/txt/msg00888.txt.bz2 On 12/08/2015 08:33 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 12/08/2015 04:28 PM, Martin Liška wrote: >> >> Majority of them (~2600 BTs) are in fortran FE (BT contains 'gfc_'): [2]. >> The rest contains some issues in CP FE, many GGC invalid read/write >> operations ([4]) and many >> memory leaks in gcc.c (for instance option handling). >> >> My question is if a bug should be created for all fortran issues and >> whether it's realistic that >> they can be eventually fixed in next stage1? > > It hardly seems worthwhile to file a bug for every issue, that's just > unnecessary bureaucracy. Fix them as you go along would be my > recommendation, that probably takes a similar amount of time. Agreed, let's just fix them as we go along. Suppressions should be a last resort in those cases where the code is operating correctly. It does happen here and there. jeff