GCC 4.3.0 Status Report (2008-01-02)

GCC 4.3.0 Status Report (2008-01-02)

[Mark Mitchell]

Status
======

We are in Stage 3.  When we reach 100 open regressions, we will go to
regression-only mode.  When we approach the 4.3.0 release, we will
create a branch, and open Stage 1 for 4.4.0.

Quality Data
============

We have approximately zero change in the quality data over the last
month.

Priority	  #	Change from Last Report
--------	---	-----------------------
P1		 31     -  2
P2		 98	+  1
P3		  5	+  1
--------	---	-----------------------
Total		134	   0

It should be noted that 9 of the PRs shown above are in WAITING state.
(Perhaps I should change the search to automatically exlcude those.)

Issues
======

Clearly, to get the numers down, we need to fix problems at a faster
rate than we're finding and/or introducing them -- or we need to
decide to downgrade some of our current regressions.

In the latest batch, I did notice several bugs with relatively exotic
options (e.g., "-fopenmp", "-ftest-coverage", and "-fmudflap".)
However, if we're going to have those features in the compiler, they
have to work -- there's no point in having a compiler with a lot of
feature checkboxes if those don't work for real code.  

I think it's perfectly reasonable todisable some of these exotic
combinations if there are ways that they can't be easily made to work;
for example, if "-fprofile-arcs -fopenmp" just isn't going happen,
then let's just sorry().  Users (or distributors) sufficiently
motivated can comment out the sorry and try it, if they really want
to, but we won't trick users into thinking that we think this ought to
work.

Most of the P1s remaining are now ICEs, not wrong-code, which is
progress.  So, I think we've moved forward a bit more than the raw
numbers might indicate.

Previous Report
===============

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00109.html

--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713

Re: GCC 4.3.0 Status Report (2008-01-02)

[Joe Buck]

On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 04:13:51PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> In the latest batch, I did notice several bugs with relatively exotic
> options (e.g., "-fopenmp", "-ftest-coverage", and "-fmudflap".)

I don't think that the first two are exotic at all.  Many developers
use coverage testing extensively, so -ftest-coverage gets lots of use.
OpenMP is also getting increasing levels of attention as the world
realizes it's going to have to learn to program in parallel.

Of course, those options in combination with other options might be
exotic.

I don't get the impression that mudflap gets much use, though.