* Readiness of tree-ssa
@ 2004-02-04 22:50 Wolfgang Bangerth
2004-02-04 22:53 ` Richard Guenther
` (3 more replies)
0 siblings, 4 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Wolfgang Bangerth @ 2004-02-04 22:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc; +Cc: gerald
I had promised to run tree-ssa against our application (deal.II) and our
testsuite. The results are great: not a single one of the 200+ testcases
fails, and none of those applications build on top of the library that I
tested gave different results either. So there are at least no obvious
miscompilations any more in my 200,000+ lines of C++ :-)
The last piece that was missing seems to have been the fix for the
early-destructor-call PR that was fixed last week. After that, all my
problems magically went away. Many thanks to all who helped fix bugs!
Gerald, Richard: what's the status with your applications presently?
W.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ices.utexas.edu
www: http://www.ices.utexas.edu/~bangerth/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Readiness of tree-ssa
2004-02-04 22:50 Readiness of tree-ssa Wolfgang Bangerth
@ 2004-02-04 22:53 ` Richard Guenther
2004-02-05 0:06 ` Joe Buck
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Richard Guenther @ 2004-02-04 22:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wolfgang Bangerth; +Cc: gcc
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
>
> I had promised to run tree-ssa against our application (deal.II) and our
> testsuite. The results are great: not a single one of the 200+ testcases
> fails, and none of those applications build on top of the library that I
> tested gave different results either. So there are at least no obvious
> miscompilations any more in my 200,000+ lines of C++ :-)
>
> The last piece that was missing seems to have been the fix for the
> early-destructor-call PR that was fixed last week. After that, all my
> problems magically went away. Many thanks to all who helped fix bugs!
>
> Gerald, Richard: what's the status with your applications presently?
I managed to carry over my __attribute__((leafify)) patch from mainline to
tree-ssa now and can compile my application fine. I'll do some
performance and correctness tests tomorrow.
Richard.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Readiness of tree-ssa
2004-02-04 22:50 Readiness of tree-ssa Wolfgang Bangerth
2004-02-04 22:53 ` Richard Guenther
@ 2004-02-05 0:06 ` Joe Buck
2004-02-05 18:59 ` Linus Sjöberg
2004-02-09 16:31 ` Gerald Pfeifer
3 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Joe Buck @ 2004-02-05 0:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wolfgang Bangerth; +Cc: gcc, gerald
On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 04:50:26PM -0600, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
> I had promised to run tree-ssa against our application (deal.II) and our
> testsuite. The results are great: not a single one of the 200+ testcases
> fails, and none of those applications build on top of the library that I
> tested gave different results either. So there are at least no obvious
> miscompilations any more in my 200,000+ lines of C++ :-)
Cool. Has anyone built KDE with tree-ssa recently?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Readiness of tree-ssa
2004-02-04 22:50 Readiness of tree-ssa Wolfgang Bangerth
2004-02-04 22:53 ` Richard Guenther
2004-02-05 0:06 ` Joe Buck
@ 2004-02-05 18:59 ` Linus Sjöberg
2004-02-09 16:31 ` Gerald Pfeifer
3 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Linus Sjöberg @ 2004-02-05 18:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc
Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ices.utexas.edu> writes:
> I had promised to run tree-ssa against our application (deal.II) and our
> testsuite. The results are great: not a single one of the 200+ testcases
> fails, and none of those applications build on top of the library that I
> tested gave different results either. So there are at least no obvious
> miscompilations any more in my 200,000+ lines of C++ :-)
I did the same with a research project I am involved in which contains something
like 50.000 lines of C++ and a whole bunch of not-so-nice constructs. With the
latest tree-ssa it compiles nicely (We actually found a bunch of bugs in our
code due to the new parser!) and all test-cases pass.
/LS
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Readiness of tree-ssa
2004-02-04 22:50 Readiness of tree-ssa Wolfgang Bangerth
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2004-02-05 18:59 ` Linus Sjöberg
@ 2004-02-09 16:31 ` Gerald Pfeifer
3 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Gerald Pfeifer @ 2004-02-09 16:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wolfgang Bangerth; +Cc: gcc
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
> I had promised to run tree-ssa against our application (deal.II) and our
> testsuite. The results are great: not a single one of the 200+ testcases
> fails, and none of those applications build on top of the library that I
> tested gave different results either. So there are at least no obvious
> miscompilations any more in my 200,000+ lines of C++ :-)
Then you are in a more lucky position then me. :-(
My application (DLV) apparently is seriously miscompiled, and I'm getting
testsuite failures en masse. Hopefully I'll be able to destill a decently
small testcase in the next couple of days.
Gerald
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Readiness of tree-ssa
@ 2004-01-20 19:48 Wolfgang Bangerth
2004-01-20 20:00 ` Richard Guenther
2004-01-21 19:44 ` Diego Novillo
0 siblings, 2 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Wolfgang Bangerth @ 2004-01-20 19:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc; +Cc: Gerald Pfeifer, rguenth
Just as another datapoint: we've got a number of people routinely compiling
and running applications nightly. Off the top of my head, this would be
Gerald, Guenther (POOMA), and me, and I'm certainly missing more. As far as I
can see none of us has had much success with tree-ssa yet.
I, for one, have repeatedly been stuck with ICEs and have never been able to
compile my library completely. Neither have my PRs been fixed overly quickly
(not that I would be entitled to this, it's just a request since I can't test
with a compiler that's continually broken; my latest report is PR 13681). I
can't say anything about speed or correctness of the generated code, of
course.
I understand and appreciate that the tree-ssa people are putting a significant
amount of work into the branch. However, I'd like to propose postponing the
merge until at least the testers inside the gcc project are reasonably happy
with the branch. Whatever they will find, we'll get as reports later anyway,
but this way we could make sure that it's fixed before it propagates to the
mainline.
W.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ices.utexas.edu
www: http://www.ices.utexas.edu/~bangerth/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Readiness of tree-ssa
2004-01-20 19:48 Wolfgang Bangerth
@ 2004-01-20 20:00 ` Richard Guenther
2004-01-20 20:07 ` Diego Novillo
2004-01-21 19:44 ` Diego Novillo
1 sibling, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Richard Guenther @ 2004-01-20 20:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wolfgang Bangerth; +Cc: gcc, Gerald Pfeifer, rguenth
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
> Just as another datapoint: we've got a number of people routinely compiling
> and running applications nightly. Off the top of my head, this would be
> Gerald, Guenther (POOMA), and me, and I'm certainly missing more. As far as I
> can see none of us has had much success with tree-ssa yet.
>
> I, for one, have repeatedly been stuck with ICEs and have never been able to
> compile my library completely. Neither have my PRs been fixed overly quickly
> (not that I would be entitled to this, it's just a request since I can't test
> with a compiler that's continually broken; my latest report is PR 13681). I
> can't say anything about speed or correctness of the generated code, of
> course.
Today for the first time I was able to compile my complete POOMA based
application with tree-ssa (on a machine with a reasonable amount of memory
- 1GB was not enough until recently). If this were my first try, I'd say
"go ahead and merge" - because the remaining compile and runtime
regressions are likely to be addressed. But of course with the mixed
experience I made in the past I'm inclined to hold off the merge for some
more time.
Oh, and of course, f.i. ia64 doesn't bootstrap on the branch for quite
some time now.
Keep it going!
Richard.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Readiness of tree-ssa
2004-01-20 20:00 ` Richard Guenther
@ 2004-01-20 20:07 ` Diego Novillo
2004-01-20 21:55 ` Richard Guenther
0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Diego Novillo @ 2004-01-20 20:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Guenther; +Cc: Wolfgang Bangerth, gcc, Gerald Pfeifer
On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 14:59, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Oh, and of course, f.i. ia64 doesn't bootstrap on the branch for quite
> some time now.
>
It does now.
Diego.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Readiness of tree-ssa
2004-01-20 20:07 ` Diego Novillo
@ 2004-01-20 21:55 ` Richard Guenther
0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Richard Guenther @ 2004-01-20 21:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Diego Novillo; +Cc: Wolfgang Bangerth, gcc, Gerald Pfeifer
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 14:59, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > Oh, and of course, f.i. ia64 doesn't bootstrap on the branch for quite
> > some time now.
> >
> It does now.
No it doesn't (updated 4 hours ago):
/bin/sh ../libtool --tag=CXX --mode=link
`/tmp/gcc-obj/ia64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/scripts/testsuite_flags
--build-cxx` -R `/tmp/gcc-obj/gcc/xgcc -B/tmp/gcc-obj/gcc/
-B/home/rguenth/ia64/gccssa-200104/ia64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/
-B/home/rguenth/ia64/gccssa-200104/ia64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/ -isystem
/home/rguenth/ia64/gccssa-200104/ia64-unknown-linux-gnu/include -isystem
/home/rguenth/ia64/gccssa-200104/ia64-unknown-linux-gnu/sys-include
-print-libgcc-file-name | sed 's,/[^/]*$,,'` -R
/tmp/gcc-obj/ia64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/src/.libs -g -O2
-D_GNU_SOURCE -o abi_check abi_check.o -lm
mkdir .libs
/tmp/gcc-obj/gcc/g++ -shared-libgcc -B/tmp/gcc-obj/gcc/ -nostdinc++
-B/home/rguenth/ia64/gccssa-200104/ia64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/
-B/home/rguenth/ia64/gccssa-200104/ia64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/ -isystem
/home/rguenth/ia64/gccssa-200104/ia64-unknown-linux-gnu/include -isystem
/home/rguenth/ia64/gccssa-200104/ia64-unknown-linux-gnu/sys-include -g -O2
-D_GNU_SOURCE -o abi_check abi_check.o
-L/tmp/gcc-obj/ia64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/src
-L/tmp/gcc-obj/ia64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/src/.libs -lm
-Wl,--rpath -Wl,/tmp/gcc-obj/gcc -Wl,--rpath
-Wl,/tmp/gcc-obj/ia64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/src/.libs
/tmp/gcc-obj/ia64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/src/.libs/libstdc++.so:
undefined reference to `_Unwind_Resume_or_Rethrow'
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
make[4]: *** [abi_check] Error 1
make[4]: Leaving directory
`/tmp/gcc-obj/ia64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/testsuite'
make[3]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[3]: Leaving directory
`/tmp/gcc-obj/ia64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3'
make[2]: *** [all] Error 2
make[2]: Leaving directory
`/tmp/gcc-obj/ia64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3'
make[1]: *** [all-target-libstdc++-v3] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/tmp/gcc-obj'
make: *** [bootstrap] Error 2
see PR13766.
Richard.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Readiness of tree-ssa
2004-01-20 19:48 Wolfgang Bangerth
2004-01-20 20:00 ` Richard Guenther
@ 2004-01-21 19:44 ` Diego Novillo
2004-01-21 20:38 ` Wolfgang Bangerth
1 sibling, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Diego Novillo @ 2004-01-21 19:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wolfgang Bangerth; +Cc: gcc, Gerald Pfeifer, Richard Guenther, Brian Booth
On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 14:48, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
> Just as another datapoint: we've got a number of people routinely compiling
> and running applications nightly. Off the top of my head, this would be
> Gerald, Guenther (POOMA), and me, and I'm certainly missing more. As far as I
> can see none of us has had much success with tree-ssa yet.
>
We've been building DLV nightly and it seems to work. The last build
was on Jan/17. Has it broken since then?
We're having some problems building POOMA, though they seem
configuration related. Brian, have you had any luck with it?
> I understand and appreciate that the tree-ssa people are putting a significant
> amount of work into the branch. However, I'd like to propose postponing the
> merge until at least the testers inside the gcc project are reasonably happy
> with the branch. Whatever they will find, we'll get as reports later anyway,
> but this way we could make sure that it's fixed before it propagates to the
> mainline.
>
Is there a PR for the problems you're having with your code? I'd like
to have PRs for all the major problems people are seeing with the
branch. We could then have a blocker PR that depends on all of those
that we agree should be addressed before the merge or immediately after
the merge.
Let's face it, when we merge the branch, we expect to have some amount
of fixing work to do. We can't pretend that the code will be releasable
by then. But we need to make sure that we merge in a state where the
problems are manageable.
Thanks. Diego.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Readiness of tree-ssa
2004-01-21 19:44 ` Diego Novillo
@ 2004-01-21 20:38 ` Wolfgang Bangerth
2004-01-21 20:46 ` Diego Novillo
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Wolfgang Bangerth @ 2004-01-21 20:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Diego Novillo; +Cc: gcc, Gerald Pfeifer, Richard Guenther, Brian Booth
> We've been building DLV nightly and it seems to work. The last build
> was on Jan/17. Has it broken since then?
I only have this mail from him:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-01/msg00657.html
This is from 2004-01-11, so may well be outdated already.
> We're having some problems building POOMA, though they seem
> configuration related. Brian, have you had any luck with it?
Richard didn't seem too happy:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-01/msg01545.html
> Is there a PR for the problems you're having with your code?
I gave it in my mail. It's PR 13681. Steven already analyzed it, but since
then it's been sitting idle.
> Let's face it, when we merge the branch, we expect to have some amount
> of fixing work to do. We can't pretend that the code will be releasable
> by then. But we need to make sure that we merge in a state where the
> problems are manageable.
But that's exactly the point -- to figure out which state the branch it is in,
it would be nice if those people that find a non-negligible number of our
bugs before something is actually released, could actually test the branch. I
understand that tree-ssa is able to compile and run a significant number of
applications at the moment, but the fact that the application testers inside
gcc are not satisfied at the moment indicates that there is some work still
to be done.
I have a nightly tester that I'd like to run, but that only makes sense if I
can compile my application. I'll make you the following deal: you make my
application compile, and I'll make sure that within a few days I'll get to
check whether and how many miscompilations I have, and file PRs for each of
them. Then we'll have a clearer picture of the state of the branch. I could
imagine that other application testers would do similar things.
This way the total number of bugs to be fixed is the same as if we merged now,
but we'll have less disruption of mainline.
Regards
Wolfgang
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ices.utexas.edu
www: http://www.ices.utexas.edu/~bangerth/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Readiness of tree-ssa
2004-01-21 20:38 ` Wolfgang Bangerth
@ 2004-01-21 20:46 ` Diego Novillo
2004-01-21 20:50 ` Wolfgang Bangerth
2004-01-21 21:13 ` Daniel Berlin
2004-01-22 17:27 ` Wolfgang Bangerth
2004-01-23 14:37 ` Gerald Pfeifer
2 siblings, 2 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Diego Novillo @ 2004-01-21 20:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wolfgang Bangerth; +Cc: gcc, Gerald Pfeifer, Richard Guenther, Brian Booth
On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 15:16, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
> > We're having some problems building POOMA, though they seem
> > configuration related. Brian, have you had any luck with it?
>
> Richard didn't seem too happy:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-01/msg01545.html
>
So, POOMA does work now, good. I meant configuration problems,
actually. The nightly tester we have seems to get into trouble
configuring POOMA.
>
> > Is there a PR for the problems you're having with your code?
>
> I gave it in my mail. It's PR 13681. Steven already analyzed it, but since
> then it's been sitting idle.
>
OK, thanks.
> > Let's face it, when we merge the branch, we expect to have some amount
> > of fixing work to do. We can't pretend that the code will be releasable
> > by then. But we need to make sure that we merge in a state where the
> > problems are manageable.
>
> But that's exactly the point -- to figure out which state the branch it is in,
>
We are in violent agreement. Now, what I'd like to know is what of the
existing PRs do people consider blockers for inclusion into mainline.
That's the consensus I want to reach. I will try and find those that I
would like to fix prior to the merge and post them here.
Does bugzilla have a voting mechanism? We are probably not going to fix
*all* the PRs prior to merging. It reaches a point of diminishing
returns where we have stuff breaking because of changes in mainline
and/or enough drift to make the merge increasingly more difficult.
Diego.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Readiness of tree-ssa
2004-01-21 20:46 ` Diego Novillo
@ 2004-01-21 20:50 ` Wolfgang Bangerth
2004-01-21 20:52 ` Diego Novillo
2004-01-21 20:59 ` Paul Jarc
2004-01-21 21:13 ` Daniel Berlin
1 sibling, 2 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Wolfgang Bangerth @ 2004-01-21 20:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Diego Novillo; +Cc: gcc, Gerald Pfeifer, Richard Guenther, Brian Booth
> We are in violent agreement. Now, what I'd like to know is what of the
> existing PRs do people consider blockers for inclusion into mainline.
Obviously 13681 is annoying me :-)
I don't know what other PRs are important to me, since I haven't yet been able
to file any about miscompilations etc.
> Does bugzilla have a voting mechanism? We are probably not going to fix
> *all* the PRs prior to merging.
You can use the priority/severity fields for this. However, my understanding
was that merging a branch usually requires zero new regressions. I think you
can't unilaterally decide which bugs you'd like to fix before merging.
W.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ices.utexas.edu
www: http://www.ices.utexas.edu/~bangerth/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Readiness of tree-ssa
2004-01-21 20:50 ` Wolfgang Bangerth
@ 2004-01-21 20:52 ` Diego Novillo
2004-01-21 20:59 ` Paul Jarc
1 sibling, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Diego Novillo @ 2004-01-21 20:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wolfgang Bangerth; +Cc: gcc, Gerald Pfeifer, Richard Guenther, Brian Booth
On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 15:46, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
> > Does bugzilla have a voting mechanism? We are probably not going to fix
> > *all* the PRs prior to merging.
>
> You can use the priority/severity fields for this. However, my understanding
> was that merging a branch usually requires zero new regressions. I think you
> can't unilaterally decide which bugs you'd like to fix before merging.
>
I didn't mean that. I was taking the other criteria for granted.
Diego.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Readiness of tree-ssa
2004-01-21 20:50 ` Wolfgang Bangerth
2004-01-21 20:52 ` Diego Novillo
@ 2004-01-21 20:59 ` Paul Jarc
1 sibling, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Paul Jarc @ 2004-01-21 20:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wolfgang Bangerth
Cc: Diego Novillo, gcc, Gerald Pfeifer, Richard Guenther, Brian Booth
Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ices.utexas.edu> wrote:
> However, my understanding was that merging a branch usually requires
> zero new regressions.
Just a thought: one new regression could be allowed for each
regression that is fixed on the branch but not on mainline - so zero
*net* new regressions. I don't remember exactly whether there are any
in this case anyway.
paul
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Readiness of tree-ssa
2004-01-21 20:46 ` Diego Novillo
2004-01-21 20:50 ` Wolfgang Bangerth
@ 2004-01-21 21:13 ` Daniel Berlin
2004-01-21 21:30 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
1 sibling, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Berlin @ 2004-01-21 21:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Diego Novillo
Cc: Wolfgang Bangerth, gcc, Brian Booth, Richard Guenther, Gerald Pfeifer
> Does bugzilla have a voting mechanism?
Yes.
I just have it turned off.
If people want me to turn it on, i will.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Readiness of tree-ssa
2004-01-21 21:13 ` Daniel Berlin
@ 2004-01-21 21:30 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2004-01-21 21:31 ` Wolfgang Bangerth
2004-01-21 21:38 ` Daniel Berlin
0 siblings, 2 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Gabriel Dos Reis @ 2004-01-21 21:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Berlin
Cc: Diego Novillo, Wolfgang Bangerth, gcc, Brian Booth,
Richard Guenther, Gerald Pfeifer
Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:
| > Does bugzilla have a voting mechanism?
|
| Yes.
| I just have it turned off.
| If people want me to turn it on, i will.
Please, please, let's not manage GCC based on hits in bugzilla.
There are various ways to look at numbers and one can make them say
nearly anything.
-- Gaby
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Readiness of tree-ssa
2004-01-21 21:30 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
@ 2004-01-21 21:31 ` Wolfgang Bangerth
2004-01-21 21:38 ` Daniel Berlin
1 sibling, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Wolfgang Bangerth @ 2004-01-21 21:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gabriel Dos Reis, Daniel Berlin
Cc: Diego Novillo, gcc, Brian Booth, Richard Guenther, Gerald Pfeifer
On Wednesday 21 January 2004 03:15 pm, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:
> | > Does bugzilla have a voting mechanism?
> |
> | Yes.
> | I just have it turned off.
> | If people want me to turn it on, i will.
>
> Please, please, let's not manage GCC based on hits in bugzilla.
> There are various ways to look at numbers and one can make them say
> nearly anything.
I agree. Out priority should be to fix regressions. Once we're done with that
we can again think about ordering teh other bugs.
W.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ices.utexas.edu
www: http://www.ices.utexas.edu/~bangerth/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Readiness of tree-ssa
2004-01-21 21:30 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2004-01-21 21:31 ` Wolfgang Bangerth
@ 2004-01-21 21:38 ` Daniel Berlin
1 sibling, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Berlin @ 2004-01-21 21:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gabriel Dos Reis
Cc: Wolfgang Bangerth, gcc, Brian Booth, Richard Guenther,
Diego Novillo, Gerald Pfeifer
On Jan 21, 2004, at 4:15 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:
>
> | > Does bugzilla have a voting mechanism?
> |
> | Yes.
> | I just have it turned off.
> | If people want me to turn it on, i will.
>
> Please, please, let's not manage GCC based on hits in bugzilla.
> There are various ways to look at numbers and one can make them say
> nearly anything.
I'm staying neutral here, since i don't really have much preference
either way (it obviously has benefits and disadvantages). I'm just
stating a fact in response to his question.
:)
>
> -- Gaby
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Readiness of tree-ssa
2004-01-21 20:38 ` Wolfgang Bangerth
2004-01-21 20:46 ` Diego Novillo
@ 2004-01-22 17:27 ` Wolfgang Bangerth
2004-01-23 14:37 ` Gerald Pfeifer
2 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Wolfgang Bangerth @ 2004-01-22 17:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Diego Novillo; +Cc: gcc, Gerald Pfeifer, Richard Guenther, Brian Booth, rth
On Wednesday 21 January 2004 02:16 pm, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
> I have a nightly tester that I'd like to run, but that only makes sense if
> I can compile my application. I'll make you the following deal: you make my
> application compile, and I'll make sure that within a few days I'll get to
> check whether and how many miscompilations I have, and file PRs for each of
> them.
Just as a follow-up to myself: Richard was so kind to fix PR 13681 (and 13772
as an unnoticed side effect) -- many thanks!
I'll see what bugs I can come up with next.
Thanks
Wolfgang
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ices.utexas.edu
www: http://www.ices.utexas.edu/~bangerth/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Readiness of tree-ssa
2004-01-21 20:38 ` Wolfgang Bangerth
2004-01-21 20:46 ` Diego Novillo
2004-01-22 17:27 ` Wolfgang Bangerth
@ 2004-01-23 14:37 ` Gerald Pfeifer
2004-01-23 17:01 ` Wolfgang Bangerth
2 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Gerald Pfeifer @ 2004-01-23 14:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wolfgang Bangerth; +Cc: Diego Novillo, gcc, Richard Guenther, Brian Booth
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
>> We've been building DLV nightly and it seems to work. The last build
>> was on Jan/17. Has it broken since then?
> I only have this mail from him:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-01/msg00657.html
> This is from 2004-01-11, so may well be outdated already.
I'm still suffering from the invalid code generation issue, though
testing has been delayed a bit due to the bootstrap failure of tree-ssa
on SPARC, the fixinc regression on Solaris (fixed on mainline and waiting
for the next merger from mainline), and the recent breakage of mainline.
Only one of these is actually closely related to tree-ssa, but testing
GCC with real-world appliations is getting a bit tought these days,
overall. :-(
In a sense, tree-ssa is now suffering from mainline being unstable and
partly broken, where the original issue was to avoid tree-ssa making
mainline unstable.
Gerald
> But that's exactly the point -- to figure out which state the branch it
> is in, it would be nice if those people that find a non-negligible
> number of our bugs before something is actually released, could actually
> test the branch.
DLV, I believe, has in the last six years lead to about 200+ bug reports
for GCC. :-/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Readiness of tree-ssa
2004-01-23 14:37 ` Gerald Pfeifer
@ 2004-01-23 17:01 ` Wolfgang Bangerth
0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Wolfgang Bangerth @ 2004-01-23 17:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gerald Pfeifer; +Cc: Diego Novillo, gcc, Richard Guenther, Brian Booth
> I'm still suffering from the invalid code generation issue,
Some initial testing: About a half a dozen of my testcases produce wrong
results, hang, or abort already in non-optimized mode :-( Some of them seem
related, though. I'll investigate these first, before trying to switch on
optimization.
Regards
Wolfgang
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ices.utexas.edu
www: http://www.ices.utexas.edu/~bangerth/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-02-09 16:31 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-02-04 22:50 Readiness of tree-ssa Wolfgang Bangerth
2004-02-04 22:53 ` Richard Guenther
2004-02-05 0:06 ` Joe Buck
2004-02-05 18:59 ` Linus Sjöberg
2004-02-09 16:31 ` Gerald Pfeifer
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-01-20 19:48 Wolfgang Bangerth
2004-01-20 20:00 ` Richard Guenther
2004-01-20 20:07 ` Diego Novillo
2004-01-20 21:55 ` Richard Guenther
2004-01-21 19:44 ` Diego Novillo
2004-01-21 20:38 ` Wolfgang Bangerth
2004-01-21 20:46 ` Diego Novillo
2004-01-21 20:50 ` Wolfgang Bangerth
2004-01-21 20:52 ` Diego Novillo
2004-01-21 20:59 ` Paul Jarc
2004-01-21 21:13 ` Daniel Berlin
2004-01-21 21:30 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2004-01-21 21:31 ` Wolfgang Bangerth
2004-01-21 21:38 ` Daniel Berlin
2004-01-22 17:27 ` Wolfgang Bangerth
2004-01-23 14:37 ` Gerald Pfeifer
2004-01-23 17:01 ` Wolfgang Bangerth
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).