This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Request for testsuite regression period
On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 14:26 -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2006, at 2:21 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 12:34:42PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >> What is the policy for testsuite regressions that have been
> >> there for over 48 hours and effect all targets and have not
> >> been fixed yet?
> > In this case, wouldn't removing the patch just move breakage from C++
> > to Ada? Or do I misunderstand?
> You are misunderstanding, there are a couple different sets of testsuite
> regressions. One in gcc.dg/tree-ssa and one in g++.dg. Ada also has a
> couple too. Reverting Jeff's patch will fix the gcc.dg/tree-ssa
And note that revering the patch will introduce new minor
I've focused on the Ada regressions as they have caused compile-time
hangs and incorrect code generation. I've worked on the tree-ssa
missed optimizations anytime I haven't been working on an Ada
Reverting the patch is just a (*&@#$ waste of time at this point.
Really, it's a waste of time/energy, much like this conversation.
I'm working diligently to address the issues and I'm confident they
will be resolved. Has it taken longer than I'd like. No doubt, but
that's no surprise as the VRP improvements have uncovered at least
a dozen distinct latent bugs.
Please, let's focus on fixing the problems rather than reverting
patches. If the tree-ssa.exp failures are bugging you that freaking
much, then xfail them like I've suggested. They're just missed
optimizations and I'm actively investigating a good fix rather than