This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 3.3-branch QA assessment
- From: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>,"gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 22:11:14 +0100
- Subject: Re: 3.3-branch QA assessment
- References: <24250000.1043522793@warlock.codesourcery.com>
Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:
> --On Friday, January 24, 2003 06:05:26 PM -0800 Joe Buck
> <jbuck@synopsys.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I've been looking at our high-priority regressions and have come to a
>> somewhat disturbing conclusion. Now, regressions aren't the whole story,
>> but based only on the regression data, it seems that 3.3 is in
>> substantially worse shape than either 3.2.x or 3.4, begging the question
>> of what the point of the 3.3 branch is. (Please read to the end before
>> you flame).
>
> You raise an interesting point.
>
> I think it is worth it to spend some time fixing regressions in 3.3 so
> that it *is* better than 3.2. The 3.4 numbers would look a lot worse
> were it not for the fact that I've been frantically trying to fix new
> parser bugs as quickly as possible; that's kept things down there. But,
> there are probably going to be a lot more bug reports; I sure don't
> expect that I wrote 15,000 lines of completely bug-free code.
>
> So, I think partly you're seeing where effort has been focused.
>
> There's already the new parser and PCH in 3.4, and we might have rtlopt
> as well. That's a lot of new technology, and my guess is a lot of new
> bugs.
>
> I'd bet we can cleanup 3.3 without *too* much effort, and provide people
> with something that is better than 3.2, but that does not have a lot
> of the instability from all the major new technology.
>From some tests Honza and myself have done (and still do) at SuSE, the
3.3 release looks already rather stable - thanks especially to a
number of bug fixes for critical bugs like compilation of KDE programs
(thanks Jason!). Note that our tests are done on x86, ia64 and x86-64
where only ia64 still shows some internal compiler errors, the others
have been fixed in the last weeks.
The release also gives better performance than GCC 3.2 so that I'd
like to see it happen,
Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeger
SuSE Labs aj@suse.de
private aj@arthur.inka.de
http://www.suse.de/~aj