This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Request for testsuite regression period
- From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
- To: law at redhat dot com
- Cc: pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu (Andrew Pinski), gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 12:52:58 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: Request for testsuite regression period
> You're really not helping here. I'm dealing with things as
> quickly as I can and prioritizing the incorrect code issues
> over minor performance issues.
If you noticed I pointed out other testsuite regressions than
just yours. If I had posted the patch (not being a global write
maintainer) and it caused the regressions, people would be on my
back right now asking for them to be fixed. I reported the failures
3 weeks ago thinking they would be fixed right away. I did the
same for the C++ testsuite failures I saw too. Lets look at this a
different way. So you missed a couple of failures while bootstrapping
and testing, right. The normal term of action is to fix them within
48 as mentioned on the policy page. Now maybe you don't want to follow
the policy as you see your self higher than the Steering committee but
that is not true.
Testsuite failures are annoying as make people quickly think they patch
is causing regressions. I can already point one example with the tree-ssa
testsuite failures already. In PR 26406, comment #6 and 7:
(In reply to comment #6)
> Patch that apart from regressing gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20030807-2.c bootstrapped and
> tested ok.
There is no regressions here as this test is already failing before your patch,
see PR 26344.