From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24953 invoked by alias); 31 Oct 2016 09:31:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 24941 invoked by uid 89); 31 Oct 2016 09:31:07 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=analyzing, investments, our X-HELO: mail-qk0-f180.google.com X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jN7CHHQWRtOowHpvQwDYneYPGF9gGYzjaWblPEk4fo4=; b=SOXyjUelOKOoOsHgwUOv7vdlBTmMlI3neGyelV3gdEp57tKLA9YuBpwBXHq+EaN2MD B5dPvL6Upe/uMOu2QvBQ36I3lQFNu8vunDnlE6FPKIzKG0Gtq3TKSOe4e+X7YwGsyZLL fG8dxM6WZ7JvXMdV0vMpNnZEyg8vo22W8IK8ElKl/T1z2RNvhRcAR40z5dozrxloPvH5 o0As1jLd+V+BFpLo3+XeFXkXGxVihoprSSaILLfk7MjmK3iQ9afpQgiYi/pO/zJyLl+n yLLkrnLl8qjU0LVvZC8KPYbVDMvx3pLPeoKyYtFrD3CBwSWKwpTD9igaDQ1ML4hjLo9T 5lhQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvdvcPOhsOr/x1uu3kBaX+0ZPKkpJVvgWQ5/EMRyurM/3H+XHgZZDyuOIclOJrS8ih0a X-Received: by 10.55.47.198 with SMTP id v189mr21291330qkh.250.1477906250800; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 02:30:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: GLIBC bug list on sourceware.org To: Andrew Pinski References: <520f3153-9ae0-f6da-6831-fb371d31ed90@redhat.com> Cc: Adhemerval Zanella , GNU C Library From: Carlos O'Donell Message-ID: <9f8b5a88-8fcc-212d-b1eb-9b9a49ea3e5f@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 09:31:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg00599.txt.bz2 On 10/30/2016 12:41 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 9:01 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >> We just need to target the incoming bugs and drive them to conclusion. > > In GCC, that is what I try to do; though the number of bugs reported > are high and many include missed optimization which are not easy to > fix right away. What I also have been trying to do is clean up the > much older ones which are more than 3-4 years old now. This week GCC > is -2 but the week before is +17 and week before that was +3; overall > in the last year GCC is +536 (more than one a day). For GCC, the C++ > front-end is the area which has gotten out of control; not enough > developers :(. Anyways this is getting offtopic now but it shows how > you can track things a little bit and how things can speed out of > control if an area is not covered by enough developers. Then we need to convince our employers that more C++ front-end developers are needed to fix the problems. But we won't know this if we don't track the bugs and try to understand where our users are having problems. On a positive note the Red Hat investments in malloc (DJ) and the stub resolver (Florian) are directly driven by analyzing bugs and user feedback. Cheers, Carlos.