From: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
To: mark@codesourcery.com
Cc: pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, lucier@math.purdue.edu
Subject: Re: Regressions in 3.2
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 18:50:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020514.174516.82809542.davem@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <108590000.1021396692@warlock.codesourcery.com>
From: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 10:18:12 -0700
Let's make this clear: although the mainline is an appropriate place for
new, sometimes destabilizing work, it's not a place for regressions. If
you've made a mess, it's your obligation to go clean up your mess as
quickly as possible.
%99 of these problems existed long before DFA or any of the other
bigger changes have gone in.
I'm suspecting it is a bunch of "stuff that went into 3.1, but not
into the mainline where we should fix it 'properly'" and the
'properly' bit has slipped through the cracks.
I have this huge diff between the 3.1 branch and the mainline I did a
couple weeks ago before DFA and other big bits went in, and I still
have to go through the rest of it looking for problem causing
differences.
Frankly, I'm still spending the bulk of my time with 3.1 looking for
Sparc show stoppers I should fix in 3.1.1 To me my time is better
allocated to that and not the mainline. I simply don't have the time
right now needed to look into the mainline regressions on Sparc.
I know that the Sparc backend is basically between the 3.1 branch and
the mainline, sans the DFA bits. That was the first thing I verified
when I started diffing the mainline with the branch the other week.
No fixes have been lost in the Sparc backend.
I remember that noting in particular that there are a lot of
non-trivial differences in the c++ front end between the branch
and the mainline. I am not very skilled in this area. I also
note that the bulk of the Sparc regressions on the mainline are in the
libstdc++ and c++ torture testsuires.
Mark, it may be instructive for Jason or yourself to diff the branch
c++ frontend with the mainline and look for anything that sticks out
like a sore thumb. Just a suggestion..
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-05-15 0:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-05-14 0:42 Brad Lucier
2002-05-14 3:36 ` Gerald Pfeifer
2002-05-14 12:09 ` Mark Mitchell
2002-05-14 18:50 ` David S. Miller [this message]
2002-05-14 22:16 ` Mark Mitchell
2002-05-15 5:58 ` Brad Lucier
2002-05-15 13:05 ` Phil Edwards
2002-05-16 13:58 ` law
2002-05-15 11:35 ` Phil Edwards
2002-05-15 11:38 ` Joe Buck
2002-05-15 11:50 ` Craig Rodrigues
2002-05-15 13:25 ` Phil Edwards
2002-05-15 6:36 ` Jan Hubicka
2002-05-15 8:29 John David Anglin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20020514.174516.82809542.davem@redhat.com \
--to=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=lucier@math.purdue.edu \
--cc=mark@codesourcery.com \
--cc=pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).