* Request easy bug fix @ 2022-02-15 12:33 Baruch Burstein 2022-02-15 12:55 ` Jonathan Wakely 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Baruch Burstein @ 2022-02-15 12:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Request easy bug fix 2022-02-15 12:33 Request easy bug fix Baruch Burstein @ 2022-02-15 12:55 ` Jonathan Wakely 2022-02-15 13:58 ` David Malcolm 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2022-02-15 12:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Baruch Burstein; +Cc: gcc 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Request easy bug fix 2022-02-15 12:55 ` Jonathan Wakely @ 2022-02-15 13:58 ` David Malcolm 2022-02-15 15:20 ` Jonathan Wakely 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: David Malcolm @ 2022-02-15 13:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jonathan Wakely, Baruch Burstein; +Cc: gcc 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Request easy bug fix 2022-02-15 13:58 ` David Malcolm @ 2022-02-15 15:20 ` Jonathan Wakely [not found] ` <CA+34VNKHGGJAD8BX4COBKrb5H-_pPm2s0ZHwMStVJqmNjTPVig@mail.gmail.com> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2022-02-15 15:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Malcolm; +Cc: Baruch Burstein, gcc 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <CA+34VNKHGGJAD8BX4COBKrb5H-_pPm2s0ZHwMStVJqmNjTPVig@mail.gmail.com>]
* Fwd: Request easy bug fix [not found] ` <CA+34VNKHGGJAD8BX4COBKrb5H-_pPm2s0ZHwMStVJqmNjTPVig@mail.gmail.com> @ 2022-10-30 15:01 ` Baruch Burstein 2022-10-31 14:03 ` Jonathan Wakely 2022-11-01 18:39 ` Fwd: " Jeff Law 0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Baruch Burstein @ 2022-10-30 15:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc [-- 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Request easy bug fix 2022-10-30 15:01 ` Fwd: " Baruch Burstein @ 2022-10-31 14:03 ` Jonathan Wakely 2022-10-31 14:23 ` Baruch Burstein 2022-11-01 18:39 ` Fwd: " Jeff Law 1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2022-10-31 14:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Baruch Burstein; +Cc: gcc 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Request easy bug fix 2022-10-31 14:03 ` Jonathan Wakely @ 2022-10-31 14:23 ` Baruch Burstein 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Baruch Burstein @ 2022-10-31 14:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jonathan Wakely; +Cc: gcc [-- 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: Request easy bug fix 2022-10-30 15:01 ` Fwd: " Baruch Burstein 2022-10-31 14:03 ` Jonathan Wakely @ 2022-11-01 18:39 ` Jeff Law 1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Jeff Law @ 2022-11-01 18:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-11-01 18:39 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2022-02-15 12:33 Request easy bug fix Baruch Burstein 2022-02-15 12:55 ` Jonathan Wakely 2022-02-15 13:58 ` David Malcolm 2022-02-15 15:20 ` Jonathan Wakely [not found] ` <CA+34VNKHGGJAD8BX4COBKrb5H-_pPm2s0ZHwMStVJqmNjTPVig@mail.gmail.com> 2022-10-30 15:01 ` Fwd: " Baruch Burstein 2022-10-31 14:03 ` Jonathan Wakely 2022-10-31 14:23 ` Baruch Burstein 2022-11-01 18:39 ` Fwd: " Jeff Law
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).