Re: Fixing Bugs (Was: A Suggestion for Release Testing)

[Scott Robert Ladd <scott dot ladd at coyotegulch dot com>]

Robert Dewar wrote:
>> If I were to present a patch that implements the recomendations of the
>> Numerical C Extensions Group, would it be accepted or rejected (on the
>> subject alone; ignore for the moment potential technical bugs in the
>> submitted code)?

> Again, it would probably be better submitted under a switch. For
> example on a machine like the Alpha, the impact of following these
> recomendations is severe degradation of performance.

Agreed. I never said it should be a default option.

> Compilers are complex beasts, I don't think you would expect to be able
> to wade in and fix nuclear reactors without being somewhat of a nuclear
> reactor expert. You can't expect to wade in and fix compilers without
> being reasonably compiler literate. For those who are compiler literate,
> GCC is certainly accessible. Sure, it could be made more accessible,
> principally by adding more documentation. Patches to add correct useful
> additional documentation are definitely welcome.

That is exactly my point. Mark chastises people for talking about
testing, implying that we are lazy for not providing patches. Perhaps
some of us wish to contribute to GCC, but lacking the knowledge to patch
the compiler, we perform testing and make bug reports.

> These definitions are actually very clear, certainly they could not
> be written in some normal programming language since they are essentially
> denotational semantic definitions, for which a language like C would be
> perfectly horrible. You need to invest the effort to fully understand
> the machine definition language before you can do anything in this
> area, and it is hard to see how it could be otherwise.

Clear to you, but not to many other bright people. And I have *never*
said there is no requirement for learning, or even criticized the
language of the machine definition files. I am saying that Mark can't
complain about a lack of bug-fixers when big-fixing is non-trivial
(which I believe agrees with your point.)

> There is no gentle way to become involved in any compiler, they are complex
> beasts, and require a considerable investment of effort.

Nope. Gentleness comes in many forms, and includes being polite to
newbies, not condescending. Providing mentors to work with people on
specific questions would do wonders for teaching GCC internals.

> I know of no bug (i.e. behavior non-conformant with ISO C) that someone
> has said should not be fixed.

No, what they do is redefine the bug such that it is no longer a bug.
Certain U.S. Presidents are quite fond of this tactic, recategorizing
things to avoid dealing with them. Bug 323 is an example of how GCC does
this.

> ANything to make it more welcoming and helpful is of course desirable, but
> I think you are expecting too much if you expect an artifact of this
> inherent complexity to be easily accessible, especially to people without
> reasonably comprehensive training (i.e. at least a familiarity with
> compilers > at the dragon book level, and reading some of the crucial papers in the
> area).

I don't deny that reality. Mark seems to feel that fixing bugs is as
easy as testing and bug reporting, and it is not. Yet people then
complain that people don't file enough bugs! It seems that no matter
what someone "outside" tries to contribute, it isn't "right".

If you want more people fixing bugs, it requires patience and respect.

..Scott