Anyone for slush?

Anyone for slush?

[Dave Korn]

  Should we perhaps, again?  I'm having trouble fixing one bootstrap-breaking
bug because of a second one that's piled in on top of it right now; how is it
for other targets?

    cheers,
      DaveK

Re: Anyone for slush?

[NightStrike]

On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 5:51 AM, Dave Korn
<dave.korn.cygwin@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>  Should we perhaps, again?  I'm having trouble fixing one bootstrap-breaking
> bug because of a second one that's piled in on top of it right now; how is it
> for other targets?
>
>    cheers,
>      DaveK
>
>

What is slush?

Re: Anyone for slush?

[Dave Korn]

NightStrike wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 5:51 AM, Dave Korn
> <dave.korn.cygwin@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>  Should we perhaps, again?  I'm having trouble fixing one bootstrap-breaking
>> bug because of a second one that's piled in on top of it right now; how is it
>> for other targets?
>>
>>    cheers,
>>      DaveK
>>
>>
> 
> What is slush?

  A phase of development when we stop adding new code and merging new features
for a while and go into bug-fix only mode to let trunk stabilise when there
are significant numbers of high-impact open PRs impeding the smooth progress
of development.

  From the lack of a response I'd guess that most of the maintainers around
this morning are finding HEAD to be in a reasonably workable state for
whatever they're doing right now.

    cheers,
      DaveK

Re: Anyone for slush?

[Joel Sherrill]

Dave Korn wrote:
> NightStrike wrote:
>   
>> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 5:51 AM, Dave Korn
>> <dave.korn.cygwin@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>>  Should we perhaps, again?  I'm having trouble fixing one bootstrap-breaking
>>> bug because of a second one that's piled in on top of it right now; how is it
>>> for other targets?
>>>
>>>    cheers,
>>>      DaveK
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> What is slush?
>>     
>
>   A phase of development when we stop adding new code and merging new features
> for a while and go into bug-fix only mode to let trunk stabilise when there
> are significant numbers of high-impact open PRs impeding the smooth progress
> of development.
>
>   From the lack of a response I'd guess that most of the maintainers around
> this morning are finding HEAD to be in a reasonably workable state for
> whatever they're doing right now.
>
>   
I need to get run baseline test results on 4.3 and 4.4 for C and
C++.  But the GNAT/RTEMS Ada results show a large number of
failures on the head that were not present in 4.3 and 4.4. 

SPARC and MIPS went from 2 to 319
x86 went from about 20 (mostly qemu issues) to 225

I emailed the list about it but given the number of
introduced failures and the fact the SPARC and MIPS
have the same failures, it leads me to believe something
is broken on the head.

So I would be +1.

--joel

Re: Anyone for slush?

[Eric Botcazou]

> I need to get run baseline test results on 4.3 and 4.4 for C and
> C++.  But the GNAT/RTEMS Ada results show a large number of
> failures on the head that were not present in 4.3 and 4.4.
>
> SPARC and MIPS went from 2 to 319
> x86 went from about 20 (mostly qemu issues) to 225

OK, but the number of Ada failures is exactly 0 on x86/Linux, x86-64/Linux, 
ia64/Linux, SPARC/Solaris and SPARC64/Solaris and 1 on PowerPC64/Linux so 
you'll have to find out why it's so different for RTEMS.

-- 
Eric Botcazou

Re: Anyone for slush?

[H.J. Lu]

On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com> wrote:
>> I need to get run baseline test results on 4.3 and 4.4 for C and
>> C++.  But the GNAT/RTEMS Ada results show a large number of
>> failures on the head that were not present in 4.3 and 4.4.
>>
>> SPARC and MIPS went from 2 to 319
>> x86 went from about 20 (mostly qemu issues) to 225
>
> OK, but the number of Ada failures is exactly 0 on x86/Linux, x86-64/Linux,
> ia64/Linux, SPARC/Solaris and SPARC64/Solaris and 1 on PowerPC64/Linux so
> you'll have to find out why it's so different for RTEMS.
>

It may be:

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41395


-- 
H.J.

Re: Anyone for slush?

[Kai Tietz]

2009/9/19 H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com>:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com> wrote:
>>> I need to get run baseline test results on 4.3 and 4.4 for C and
>>> C++.  But the GNAT/RTEMS Ada results show a large number of
>>> failures on the head that were not present in 4.3 and 4.4.
>>>
>>> SPARC and MIPS went from 2 to 319
>>> x86 went from about 20 (mostly qemu issues) to 225
>>
>> OK, but the number of Ada failures is exactly 0 on x86/Linux, x86-64/Linux,
>> ia64/Linux, SPARC/Solaris and SPARC64/Solaris and 1 on PowerPC64/Linux so
>> you'll have to find out why it's so different for RTEMS.
>>
>
> It may be:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41395

And http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39886

Kai


-- 
|  (\_/) This is Bunny. Copy and paste
| (='.'=) Bunny into your signature to help
| (")_(") him gain world domination

Re: Anyone for slush?

[Laurent GUERBY]

On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 16:58 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > I need to get run baseline test results on 4.3 and 4.4 for C and
> > C++.  But the GNAT/RTEMS Ada results show a large number of
> > failures on the head that were not present in 4.3 and 4.4.
> >
> > SPARC and MIPS went from 2 to 319
> > x86 went from about 20 (mostly qemu issues) to 225
> 
> OK, but the number of Ada failures is exactly 0 on x86/Linux, x86-64/Linux, 
> ia64/Linux, SPARC/Solaris and SPARC64/Solaris and 1 on PowerPC64/Linux so 
> you'll have to find out why it's so different for RTEMS.

Joel reported results for 4.5.0 20090910 r151592 and state of GCC
changed a lot in the past 9 days. RTEMS is also a sjlj target IIRC.

Sincerely,

Laurent

Re: Anyone for slush?

[Eric Botcazou]

> Joel reported results for 4.5.0 20090910 r151592 and state of GCC
> changed a lot in the past 9 days. RTEMS is also a sjlj target IIRC.

Then, if EH is totally broken, a PR should be opened with a reduced testcase.

-- 
Eric Botcazou

Re: Anyone for slush?

[Joel Sherrill]

Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 16:58 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>   
>>> I need to get run baseline test results on 4.3 and 4.4 for C and
>>> C++.  But the GNAT/RTEMS Ada results show a large number of
>>> failures on the head that were not present in 4.3 and 4.4.
>>>
>>> SPARC and MIPS went from 2 to 319
>>> x86 went from about 20 (mostly qemu issues) to 225
>>>       
>> OK, but the number of Ada failures is exactly 0 on x86/Linux, x86-64/Linux, 
>> ia64/Linux, SPARC/Solaris and SPARC64/Solaris and 1 on PowerPC64/Linux so 
>> you'll have to find out why it's so different for RTEMS.
>>     
>
>   
On what date?
> Joel reported results for 4.5.0 20090910 r151592 and state of GCC
> changed a lot in the past 9 days. RTEMS is also a sjlj target IIRC.
>
>   
Laurent.. are you suggesting that it might have improved
in the past 9 days?  That I should rerun with the latest GCC
and report again?

--joel
> Sincerely,
>
> Laurent
>
>
>
>   

Re: Anyone for slush?

[Joel Sherrill]

Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Joel reported results for 4.5.0 20090910 r151592 and state of GCC
>> changed a lot in the past 9 days. RTEMS is also a sjlj target IIRC.
>>     
>
> Then, if EH is totally broken, a PR should be opened with a reduced testcase.
>
>   
I will rebuild with the head and run ACATS on
one of the broken ones.  If still bad, then
I will try with some simple exception tests
Laurent put together the last time it broke.
Maybe they are useful again. :)

--joel

Re: Anyone for slush?

[Eric Botcazou]

> On what date?

See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-09

-- 
Eric Botcazou

Re: Anyone for slush?

[Eric Botcazou]

> I will rebuild with the head and run ACATS on
> one of the broken ones.  If still bad, then
> I will try with some simple exception tests
> Laurent put together the last time it broke.
> Maybe they are useful again. :)

Were they added to the gnat.dg testsuite?  If no, they should.

-- 
Eric Botcazou

Re: Anyone for slush?

[Paolo Bonzini]

> And http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39886

This one is relatively rare, so no.  Feel free to pick up the patch, I 
already have too many approved patches that I cannot get round to test 
and commit.

Paolo

Re: Anyone for slush?

[Angelo Graziosi]

Dave Korn wrote:
> A phase of development when we stop adding new code and merging new features
> for a while and go into bug-fix only mode to let trunk stabilise when there
> are significant numbers of high-impact open PRs impeding the smooth progress
> of development.

+1

Cheers,
Angelo.

Re: Anyone for slush?

[Dominique Dhumieres]

>   Should we perhaps, again?  I'm having trouble fixing one bootstrap-breaking
> bug because of a second one that's piled in on top of it right now; how is it
> for other targets?

Bad for darwin!-(bootstrap failing since at least r151822, see pr41405).
If you add pr41407+others, a slush should be applied untill the whole mess
is sorted out.

Just my 1c of advice.

Cheers

Dominique