From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1740 invoked by alias); 30 Aug 2004 21:05:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 1732 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2004 21:05:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail45.ha.ovh.net) (213.186.33.51) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 30 Aug 2004 21:05:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 14966 invoked by uid 503); 30 Aug 2004 21:05:20 -0000 Received: from d213-101-195-183.cust.tele2.fr (HELO ?192.168.1.102?) (laurent%guerby.net@213.101.195.183) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 30 Aug 2004 21:05:20 -0000 Subject: Re: Ada policy (was: GCC 3.5 Status (2004-08-29)) From: Laurent GUERBY To: Richard Kenner Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <10408302028.AA29721@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> References: <10408302028.AA29721@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1093899908.17130.132.camel@pc.site> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 21:30:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg01525.txt.bz2 On Mon, 2004-08-30 at 22:28, Richard Kenner wrote: > The scenario I want to avoid is that we first reach 100% ACATS pass on > the two targets (looks likely), then later a patch goes in that > introduces 20 ACATS regressions on those two targets and the patch is > not fixed or reverted following the usual rules for other components. > > Yes, but that's a *different* standard. What you are talking about > if whether the commit rules will require running ACATS to commit a > patch. Sorry I wasn't clear on my intent. The commit rules don't require you to test on all the platforms, but if someone report that you break one you didn't test, it's still considered your fault and you should try to help on the issue, and in some extreme cases the patch could be reverted (at least that's my understanding). This "platform" rule could also be applied to components, you don't necessarily have to test Ada, but if someones points out a breakage, you have to be helpful on the issue. (BTW I didn't find on the web site a link to the 3.4 release criteria page http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.4/criteria.html, and didn't find one for 3.5 did I miss something?) > The question raised was whether Ada should be part of the > release criteria. > > These are not the same. May be but I must admit I fail to see the practical difference, if you're not continuously looking in some way at regressions on one platform or component for a full development cycle, it's unlikely that you'll be able to reach any relase criteria involving this platform or component at the end of the cycle (without potential delays). The current rules differ on who should be "looking" at regressions depending on component vs platform (the patch submitter or someone else), but that's less important IMHO than having a consistent rule on what to do when a regression is detected on a particular patch. Laurent