This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Beyond GCC 3.0: Summing Up

To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
Subject: Re: Beyond GCC 3.0: Summing Up
From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 00:51:17 -0700
Cc: dewar at gnat dot com, kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu,mark at codesourcery dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
References: <20010710031120.960A5F2B12@nile.gnat.com> <orzoadxvh6.fsf@guarana.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>

On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 01:24:05AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jul 10, 2001, dewar@gnat.com wrote:
> 
> > If your patch causes things to fail that did not fail before, then
> > your patch is ultimately at fault!
> 
> Even when the patch also causes things to work that did not work
> before?  Is it more important to keep the set of known failures
> unchanged than to make progress by fixing a bug, even if exposing
> another latent bug?  I don't think so.
> 

I think it depends on the nature of the latent bug. If it is an
rare, isolated bug, it is ok to fail if the other bugs are fixed.
But if the change prevents gcc from bootstrapping on a major platform
or compiling some common applications on a major platform, I think
the change should be backed out.

H.J.

References:
- Re: Beyond GCC 3.0: Summing Up
  - From: dewar
- Re: Beyond GCC 3.0: Summing Up
  - From: Alexandre Oliva

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]