GCC 4.5 Status Report (2010-03-15)

GCC 4.5 Status Report (2010-03-15)

[Richard Guenther]

Status
======

The trunk is still in stage 4 which means it is open under the usual
release branch rules.  Thus the trunk is open for regression and
documentation fixes only.

There are currently 16 P1 bugs that block the release.  If you are
assigned to any P1 GCC 4.5 regression please either work on them
or unassign yourself.  We have been in stage 4 for three and a half
month now, so you can expect that some bugs that are now P1 will
be downgraded to P2 at the point a release candidate is made
available, simply to not block the release of 4.5.0 forever.
As maintainers do not care for P1 bugs in their maintainance area
so will the release managers not consider them P1.

The following is a list of P1 GCC 4.5 regressions that look serious
enough to myself to ping them explicitly here:

 42509, arm-gnueabi doesn't bootstrap but is a primary target
 43873, var-tracking deadlocks
 43087, C++ ICE in tsubst
 43206, C++ ICE in cp/pt.c:9249
 43300, ICE during SSA expand
 43333, C++ __is_pod is broken
 43365, EH lowering/optimization causes wrong-code
 43375, ICE caused by the new vector type mangling

Overall GCC 4.5 does not look bad.  But we are still sorting out
VTA related bugs (and improvements as it appears to me).


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

Priority          #     Change from Last Report
--------        ---     -----------------------
P1               16     - 8
P2               98     + 4
P3                3     - 3 
--------        ---     -----------------------
Total           117     - 7


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

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-02/msg00270.html


The next status report will be sent by Jakub.

-- 
Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de>
Novell / SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746 - GF: Markus Rex

Re: GCC 4.5 Status Report (2010-03-15)

[Jeff Law]

On 03/15/10 10:18, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Status
> ======
>
> The trunk is still in stage 4 which means it is open under the usual
> release branch rules.  Thus the trunk is open for regression and
> documentation fixes only.
>
> There are currently 16 P1 bugs that block the release.  If you are
> assigned to any P1 GCC 4.5 regression please either work on them
> or unassign yourself.  We have been in stage 4 for three and a half
> month now, so you can expect that some bugs that are now P1 will
> be downgraded to P2 at the point a release candidate is made
> available, simply to not block the release of 4.5.0 forever.
> As maintainers do not care for P1 bugs in their maintainance area
> so will the release managers not consider them P1.
>
> The following is a list of P1 GCC 4.5 regressions that look serious
> enough to myself to ping them explicitly here:
>
>   42509, arm-gnueabi doesn't bootstrap but is a primary target
>   43873, var-tracking deadlocks
>   43087, C++ ICE in tsubst
>   43206, C++ ICE in cp/pt.c:9249
>   43300, ICE during SSA expand
>   43333, C++ __is_pod is broken
>   43365, EH lowering/optimization causes wrong-code
>   43375, ICE caused by the new vector type mangling
>
> Overall GCC 4.5 does not look bad.  But we are still sorting out
> VTA related bugs (and improvements as it appears to me).
>    
FWIW, it might be helpful to include the list of _all_ P1s in these 
reports -- there may be people that have some time to help out, but 
don't know precisely which bugs are the most critical right now.

Jeff

Re: GCC 4.5 Status Report (2010-03-15)

[Richard Guenther]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 3294 bytes --]

On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, Jeff Law wrote:

> On 03/15/10 10:18, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > Status
> > ======
> > 
> > The trunk is still in stage 4 which means it is open under the usual
> > release branch rules.  Thus the trunk is open for regression and
> > documentation fixes only.
> > 
> > There are currently 16 P1 bugs that block the release.  If you are
> > assigned to any P1 GCC 4.5 regression please either work on them
> > or unassign yourself.  We have been in stage 4 for three and a half
> > month now, so you can expect that some bugs that are now P1 will
> > be downgraded to P2 at the point a release candidate is made
> > available, simply to not block the release of 4.5.0 forever.
> > As maintainers do not care for P1 bugs in their maintainance area
> > so will the release managers not consider them P1.
> > 
> > The following is a list of P1 GCC 4.5 regressions that look serious
> > enough to myself to ping them explicitly here:
> > 
> >   42509, arm-gnueabi doesn't bootstrap but is a primary target
> >   43873, var-tracking deadlocks
> >   43087, C++ ICE in tsubst
> >   43206, C++ ICE in cp/pt.c:9249
> >   43300, ICE during SSA expand
> >   43333, C++ __is_pod is broken
> >   43365, EH lowering/optimization causes wrong-code
> >   43375, ICE caused by the new vector type mangling
> > 
> > Overall GCC 4.5 does not look bad.  But we are still sorting out
> > VTA related bugs (and improvements as it appears to me).
> >    
> FWIW, it might be helpful to include the list of _all_ P1s in these reports --
> there may be people that have some time to help out, but don't know precisely
> which bugs are the most critical right now.

The rest of the P1 are

 41371, var-tracking slowness (fixed, waiting for more testcases)
 42181, wrong-code with -fgraphite-identity
 42450, cgraph checking ICE, patch available
 42917, -fcompare-debug failure with -ftree-loop-linear, patch available
 42977, -fcompare-debug failure with even more weird flags
 43051, debug quality issue with VTA
 43058, var-tracking using up all virtual memory on 32bit hosts
 43092, debug correctness issue with VTA

Bugzilla queries for all P1 GCC 4.5 regressions is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=4.5&target_milestone=4.3.0&target_milestone=4.3.1&target_milestone=4.3.2&target_milestone=4.3.3&target_milestone=4.3.4&target_milestone=4.3.5&target_milestone=4.3.6&target_milestone=4.4.0&target_milestone=4.4.1&target_milestone=4.4.2&target_milestone=4.4.3&target_milestone=4.4.4&target_milestone=4.4.5&target_milestone=4.5.0&known_to_fail_type=allwordssubstr&known_to_work_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&gcchost_type=allwordssubstr&gcchost=&gcctarget_type=allwordssubstr&gcctarget=&gccbuild_type=allwordssubstr&gccbuild=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=SUSPENDED&bug_status=WAITING&bug_status=REOPENED&priority=P1&emailtype1=substring&email1=&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfiel
 dvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&query_based_on=4.5+blocker&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=


Richard.

Re: GCC 4.5 Status Report (2010-03-15)

[NightStrike]

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> wrote:
> As maintainers do not care for P1 bugs in their maintainance area
> so will the release managers not consider them P1.

Probably not the best reason to downgrade a bug, eh?

Re: GCC 4.5 Status Report (2010-03-15)

[Basile Starynkevitch]

Richard Guenther wrote:
> Status
> ======
> 
> The trunk is still in stage 4 which means it is open under the usual
> release branch rules.  Thus the trunk is open for regression and
> documentation fixes only.
> 


What does that means with respect to plugin related code? See my message 
on http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-03/msg00140.html

Regards.

-- 
Basile STARYNKEVITCH         http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/
email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net mobile: +33 6 8501 2359
8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France
*** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***

Re: GCC 4.5 Status Report (2010-03-15)

[Ramana Radhakrishnan]

>  42509, arm-gnueabi doesn't bootstrap but is a primary target

I haven't had the time in the past few weeks to work on this
effectively. I'll be able to find some time to work on this during this
week and will get back on this.

cheers
Ramana

Re: GCC 4.5 Status Report (2010-03-15)

[Richard Guenther]

On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, NightStrike wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> wrote:
> > As maintainers do not care for P1 bugs in their maintainance area
> > so will the release managers not consider them P1.
> 
> Probably not the best reason to downgrade a bug, eh?

Well - patches welcome!

Richard.

Re: GCC 4.5 Status Report (2010-03-15)

[Steven Bosscher]

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, NightStrike wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> wrote:
>> > As maintainers do not care for P1 bugs in their maintainance area
>> > so will the release managers not consider them P1.
>>
>> Probably not the best reason to downgrade a bug, eh?
>
> Well - patches welcome!

Indeed. And one has to realize that fixing all these bugs becomes a
real problem for GCC, as a project, if the company with the largest
listed number of maintainers (many of them of components with P1 bugs)
chooses to not contribue at all to the bug-fixing effort before the
release...

Ciao!
Steven

Re: GCC 4.5 Status Report (2010-03-15)

[Richard Guenther]

On Tue, 16 Mar 2010, Steven Bosscher wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, NightStrike wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> wrote:
> >> > As maintainers do not care for P1 bugs in their maintainance area
> >> > so will the release managers not consider them P1.
> >>
> >> Probably not the best reason to downgrade a bug, eh?
> >
> > Well - patches welcome!
> 
> Indeed. And one has to realize that fixing all these bugs becomes a
> real problem for GCC, as a project, if the company with the largest
> listed number of maintainers (many of them of components with P1 bugs)
> chooses to not contribue at all to the bug-fixing effort before the
> release...

To be fair the people of that company do not expose bugs proportional
to their headcount either.

Richard.

Re: GCC 4.5 Status Report (2010-03-15)

[Steven Bosscher]

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, NightStrike wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> wrote:
>> >> > As maintainers do not care for P1 bugs in their maintainance area
>> >> > so will the release managers not consider them P1.
>> >>
>> >> Probably not the best reason to downgrade a bug, eh?
>> >
>> > Well - patches welcome!
>>
>> Indeed. And one has to realize that fixing all these bugs becomes a
>> real problem for GCC, as a project, if the company with the largest
>> listed number of maintainers (many of them of components with P1 bugs)
>> chooses to not contribue at all to the bug-fixing effort before the
>> release...
>
> To be fair the people of that company do not expose bugs proportional
> to their headcount either.

Neither do I, and yet I try to help ;-)

Ciao!
Steven

Re: GCC 4.5 Status Report (2010-03-15)

[Paul Richard Thomas]

Richi, Steven,

>> To be fair the people of that company do not expose bugs proportional
>> to their headcount either.
>
> Neither do I, and yet I try to help ;-)


Now, now, you two :-)

Paul

Re: GCC 4.5 Status Report (2010-03-15)

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, Richard Guenther wrote:

>  42509, arm-gnueabi doesn't bootstrap but is a primary target

The primary target is arm-eabi, which is a bare-metal target; the arm-eabi 
and mipsisa64-elf references must be understood as referring to building 
and testing a cross compiler from some other primary platform, since you 
can't bootstrap on those systems.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com