This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Impact of bugs on different versions.
For a C standalone application (no libs) I selected the following
components: c, inline-asm, ipa, preprocessor, regression,
rtl-optimization, target, tree-optimization.
Am I missing any that could be relevant?
A search only filtering for these components shows >4k results. I guess
that I need to find some way to trim it down.
Thanks anyway for the indications.
On 21/09/17 14:02, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 21 September 2017 at 12:56, Vicent Brocal wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>> I am trying to figure out which are the problems affecting a specific
>> version of GCC (4.4.2) from the information in the bug tracker
>> So far I have been able to get a list of the bugs restricted to
>> standalone C components (c, inline-asm, ipa, preprocessor, regression,
>> rtl-optimization, target, tree-optimization) and filtering "known to
>> fail" field to 4.4.2.
>> Does that cover the case when for example a bug was detected for 4.4.5
>> that also impacts 4.4.2?
>> How exhaustively previous versions in the same
>> series (e.g 4.4) are checked when a problem is discovered in a newer
>> version (e.g 4.4.5)?
> Not at all exhaustively. Even if someone tests it and confirms it's
> present in that version, typically it wouldn't get listed in the Known
> to fail field.
> In general if a bug affects 4.4.5 and is not marked as a Regression
> (in the bug summary) then it is safe to assume it also affected all
> earlier 4.4.x releases
> That field isn't even always populated (it's only required for
> regressions). You also need to look at the Version field.
> A bug could have been detected in 4.4.1 and not fixed until 4.4.3, in
> which case it would be present in 4.4.2 but that wouldn't be in the
> Known to fail field, or the Version field.
> Or a bug could have been detected in 4.5.0 and fixed for 4.5.1, but
> also present in older versions too, including 4.4.2. But you wouldn't
> find any 4.4.x number in any field.
> You're going to need to do a **lot** more work than simply inspecting
> the Known to fail field, or any simple combination of fields.