Request easy bug fix

Request easy bug fix

[Baruch Burstein]

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. 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.

Thank you

Re: Request easy bug fix

[Jonathan Wakely]

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.


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).


> 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.
>

No change ever takes two minutes, because you have to write tests at a
minimum.

Re: Request easy bug fix

[David Malcolm]

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

Re: Request easy bug fix

[Jonathan Wakely]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 13:58, David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

Agreed. So it would help to know which docs Baruch was looking at when
getting lost. There's no point adding *more* docs if we already have some
that are doing more harm than good.


>
> >
> >
> > > 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)
>

Clang and the MSVC compiler both ignore any tokens after the pragma, so
that seems good enough for GCC too:

https://godbolt.org/z/norv947a5

Fwd: Request easy bug fix

[Baruch Burstein]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1021 bytes --]

On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 5:20 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 13:58, David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>

 <snip>
>


Clang and the MSVC compiler both ignore any tokens after the pragma, so
> that seems good enough for GCC too:
>
> https://godbolt.org/z/norv947a5
>
>
I am sorry for posting this again, but to the best of my understanding of
the thread at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla//show_bug.cgi?id=85487, the
patch already exists (I am not sure where), and was not merged to GCC 12
only because I called attention to it too late in the dev cycle, so I am
trying to get this in earlier for GCC 13. It is literally a "do-nothing"
patch.

Re: Request easy bug fix

[Jonathan Wakely]

On Sun, 30 Oct 2022 at 15:02, Baruch Burstein via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 5:20 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 13:58, David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >
>
>  <snip>
> >
>
>
> Clang and the MSVC compiler both ignore any tokens after the pragma, so
> > that seems good enough for GCC too:
> >
> > https://godbolt.org/z/norv947a5
> >
> >
> I am sorry for posting this again, but to the best of my understanding of
> the thread at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla//show_bug.cgi?id=85487, the
> patch already exists (I am not sure where), and was not merged to GCC 12
> only because I called attention to it too late in the dev cycle, so I am
> trying to get this in earlier for GCC 13.

You've waited until two weeks before the deadline for GCC 13 changes!
I'll re-propose my patch, but it would have been much better to do it
when I wasn't rushing to get 20 *other* changes finished in the next
two weeks!

> It is literally a "do-nothing"
> patch.

Re: Request easy bug fix

[Baruch Burstein]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 501 bytes --]

On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 4:03 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> You've waited until two weeks before the deadline for GCC 13 changes!
> I'll re-propose my patch, but it would have been much better to do it
> when I wasn't rushing to get 20 *other* changes finished in the next
> two weeks!


Thank you, and I apologize. I was hoping it gets in without me having to
point attention to it since I thought that would be impolite. If it doesn't
get in, I now know to ask again in May.

Re: Fwd: Request easy bug fix

[Jeff Law]

On 10/30/22 09:01, Baruch Burstein via Gcc wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 5:20 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 13:58, David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>   <snip>
>
> Clang and the MSVC compiler both ignore any tokens after the pragma, so
>> that seems good enough for GCC too:
>>
>> https://godbolt.org/z/norv947a5
>>
>>
> I am sorry for posting this again, but to the best of my understanding of
> the thread at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla//show_bug.cgi?id=85487, the
> patch already exists (I am not sure where), and was not merged to GCC 12
> only because I called attention to it too late in the dev cycle, so I am
> trying to get this in earlier for GCC 13. It is literally a "do-nothing"
> patch.

Just a note, I won't object if someone wants to move this forward.

jeff