From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21FBC3858D20 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 13:58:28 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 21FBC3858D20 Received: from mail-qt1-f200.google.com (mail-qt1-f200.google.com [209.85.160.200]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-171-wDLIdJaqO_6YqZZ_qws3uQ-1; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 08:58:24 -0500 X-MC-Unique: wDLIdJaqO_6YqZZ_qws3uQ-1 Received: by mail-qt1-f200.google.com with SMTP id l15-20020ac84ccf000000b002cf9424cfa5so14912644qtv.7 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 05:58:24 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=VXUWB8v6aPz+gavkObBXkvpqx7Hl2xqU16I+CmQBYK0=; b=qGnkmhHZ5f1jBSqMzjM1bKeZEBxIckd3IyhKkmhJM9NwsdiH0N0JRbFUP0nxOmM6DV +y40YRvX6SBxg0YYBEDcz9wsilbrt9uDnSpAJPJHS49+fFgwvqU0kDXuQJDijZ+PMaIm mItJgGsJ3t9gDsOuM45s1qY3Ad7tWSZSPK1fWQJPTYNzGvNDJ9w84ZyoFBR1mhSlfiua NxjLguUNEfD6QDVgR0UGO1ySlia0qpCLqSM6AZgmCBkQDAASH1uMQhhUzNeIUcqFZBFx P59Cy6ISnVaKWJ/Qs8u61G5RN7pWO3Ezro/SDCck99EIa9leqFsNcIkjTehTtADmok+O 8NJg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5335bXx+hqBDy2i2EHs3ZEldcqEtpibJm54JgKk96lx584BDNBJ8 eU+dk/z7HkNQIz10HAHfRbl712Gd+PL0FgLvUwIjygH+XATJiL/7Y3WsaPySIL4sz0OdXvCIqjJ l+exZ7JE= X-Received: by 2002:a37:9cd:: with SMTP id 196mr2010723qkj.84.1644933504321; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 05:58:24 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz/NzNJLz8F8YzhgAWzNWWK57mEOeqjr1uycVfQ1PQ3SCHeZ/eex8dLdV/2vd7z/3GuPbzmqw== X-Received: by 2002:a37:9cd:: with SMTP id 196mr2010712qkj.84.1644933504083; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 05:58:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from t14s.localdomain (c-73-69-212-193.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [73.69.212.193]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j15sm16084925qkp.88.2022.02.15.05.58.23 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 15 Feb 2022 05:58:23 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <27d907087416c330d59ce78dce522fd26a5d712e.camel@redhat.com> Subject: Re: Request easy bug fix From: David Malcolm To: Jonathan Wakely , Baruch Burstein Cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 08:58:22 -0500 In-Reply-To: References: User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.4 (3.38.4-1.fc33) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, KAM_SHORT, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 13:58:30 -0000 On Tue, 2022-02-15 at 12:55 +0000, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote: > On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 12:34, Baruch Burstein via Gcc < > gcc@gcc.gnu.org> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I hope it is not inappropriate to call attention to a specific bug. > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla//show_bug.cgi?id=85487. > > I tried to do it myself, but got lost on the part where I needed to > > compile gcc 3 times and compare test results to some (un)known test > > results. Thanks for trying to fix the bug. > > > You compare the test results of your patched gcc to the test results > of an > unpatched gcc. > > How did you get lost? To "compile gcc 3 times" you just run "make", > and it > does that automatically (unless you configured with --disable- > bootstrap, in > which case it just compiles once). Jonathan, if I may: you're extremely familiar with hacking on GCC, and I think that familiarity is leading you to underestimate the learning curve for someone new getting involved in GCC development. As you say, --disable-bootstrap is the configure-time option to use when working on a new patch, since it avoids the "compile 3 times" cycle. We could probably document that better. > > > > It was too much time and setup for a fix that will probably > > take 2 minutes to implement, so I am asking if someone that already > > contributes to gcc can please look at this. I think it should only > > take a couple of minutes to implement. Baruch: here you are underestimating the time that adding a new feature takes; yes, it perhaps could take about 2 minutes to get a minimal proof-of-concept working, but once you start adding documentation, test-cases, etc it becomes more than that. Also, looking at the discussion now happening in the bug report, it's not clear that the absolute minimum implementation is the correct one I'm guessing that you care because you're working in a mixed Visual Studio/GCC environment, and have a codebase with these pragmas. Does Visual Studio complain about mismatches, or incorrect nesting? If so, can you give some more information about these interoperability issues being discussed in the bug report? (I used to work in such an environment, but that was over 20 years ago; my knowledge of Visual Studio is *very* out of date, sorry) > > > > No change ever takes two minutes, because you have to write tests at > a > minimum. Hope this is constructive Dave