From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13570 invoked by alias); 20 Dec 2002 17:12:37 -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 13482 invoked from network); 20 Dec 2002 17:12:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO e35.co.us.ibm.com) (32.97.110.133) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 20 Dec 2002 17:12:29 -0000 Received: from westrelay03.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.194.24]) by e35.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id gBKHCEmV057592; Fri, 20 Dec 2002 12:12:14 -0500 Received: from dyn9-47-17-68.beaverton.ibm.com (dyn9-47-17-68.beaverton.ibm.com [9.47.17.68]) by westrelay03.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.3/NCO/VER6.4) with ESMTP id gBKHCDA7082694; Fri, 20 Dec 2002 10:12:13 -0700 Received: (from janis@localhost) by dyn9-47-17-68.beaverton.ibm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA01649; Fri, 20 Dec 2002 09:14:45 -0800 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:29:00 -0000 From: Janis Johnson To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Cc: rodrigc@attbi.com, bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu Subject: regression hunt status, question about reports to mailing list Message-ID: <20021220091444.A1633@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg01269.txt.bz2 Should I continue to send mail to gcc@gcc.gnu.org when I identify the patch that caused a regression or that fixed a mainline regression that still exists on a release branch? This seemed like a good idea when there was one every couple of days, but I'm continuing to discover short-cuts that make it faster and easier, so the trickle of mail might be getting large enough to be annoying (I've got three more almost ready to report this morning). Besides sending these to the gcc list I've also been sending mail via GNATS to include in the PR, which also goes to gcc-bugs. If I stop sending mail to the gcc list I'll be sure to add the patch submitter to the list of recipients for the GNATS mail. Wolfgang has been a great help in all of this. He continues to send me information about two-week windows when regressions came or went, plus other information that's useful in deciding which ones to do next. The cut-down test cases that Wolfgang, Volker, and others have added to GNATS are invaluable. There are dozens more regressions to track down, including several for platforms that I can't test, particularly sparc. I'd be happy to answer questions for other people who want to join in the hunt. Janis