This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Beyond GCC 3.0: Summing Up
- To: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- Subject: Re: Beyond GCC 3.0: Summing Up
- From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Date: 09 Jul 2001 12:51:42 -0300
- Cc: jbuck at synopsys dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Organization: GCC Team, Red Hat
- References: <10107090125.AA03052@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
On Jul 8, 2001, kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) wrote:
> Well, maybe a change that exposes a latent bug can go in on a branch
> or something, to make it easier for others to work on it. After the
> bug is fixed the branch can be removed.
> Perhaps, but I get very concerned about the number of branches and the work
> in merging them all back in if this is a common practice.
Me too. I think it might be reasonable to have Gnats PRs in some new
category containing patches that may have to be reverted for some
target to bootstrap, or something. This would have the benefit of
giving people who don't look up the Gnats database an extra push to
attempt to fix the bug, while still giving them the option of finding
the patch quite easily and reverting it in their own tree, so that
they can trade the breakage exposed by the patch for the breakage
fixed by the patch.
Note how this compares with reverting the patch in mainline, in which
case a person interested in a certain target might never realize there
is any breakage that needs to be fixed, which would have allowed the
patch that fixes actual bugs on other targets to be installed.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me