This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Overwhelmed by GCC frustration
- From: Joel Sherrill <joel dot sherrill at oarcorp dot com>
- To: Oleg Endo <oleg dot endo at t-online dot de>, Georg-Johann Lay <avr at gjlay dot de>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 11:49:06 -0500
- Subject: Re: Overwhelmed by GCC frustration
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <597F2FB4.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
On 7/31/2017 11:12 AM, Oleg Endo wrote:
On Mon, 2017-07-31 at 15:25 +0200, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
Around 2010, someone who used a code snipped that I published in
a wiki, reported that the code didn't work and hang in an
endless loop. Soon I found out that it was due to some GCC
problem, and I got interested in fixing the compiler so that
it worked with my code.
1 1/2 years later, in 2011, [...]
I could probably write a similar rant. This is the life of a "minority
target programmer". Most development efforts are being done with
primary targets in mind. And as a result, most changes are being
tested only on such targets.
To improve the situation, we'd need a lot more target specific tests
which test for those regressions that you have mentioned. Then of
course somebody has to run all those tests on all those various
targets. I think that's the biggest problem. But still, with a test
case at hand, it's much easier to talk to people who have silently
introduced a regression on some "other" targets. Most of the time they
just don't know.
Long ago, there was a code size regression tester for at least
ARM. Is that still around?
RTEMS also has a number of "minority targets" and we have seen
breakages take a long time to get fixed. Most of our targets
use gcc 7.1.0 but two have to use 4.9.x, one uses 4.8.3, and
one is at 6.3.0.