This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Revert libsanitizer patches or fix 59009
- From: Michael Meissner <meissner at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google dot com>
- Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Michael Meissner <meissner at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, Evgeniy Stepanov <eugeni dot stepanov at gmail dot com>, Peter Bergner <bergner at vnet dot ibm dot com>, Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin dot s dot serebryany at gmail dot com>, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo dot med dot uc dot edu>, Alexander Potapenko <glider at google dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Dodji Seketeli <dodji at redhat dot com>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov at google dot com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:21:46 -0500
- Subject: Re: Revert libsanitizer patches or fix 59009
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAN=P9pjSZcDNN3sP6fxJ4V553mQPQihpsuWiCpDLUrw=gszMGg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAN=P9pjkzWkV_rQmcde-DKS8dg8xUjt+pyCUe_8yGMeCrBeRqQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <20131112180403 dot GA30956 at ibm-tiger dot the-meissners dot org> <CAN=P9pgPY-QcGMbm6k25fGS24qcTLXbZX8px+09n-oeG6O5ZzQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <20131112185704 dot GY27813 at tucnak dot zalov dot cz> <CAN=P9pibOvxQyDZzQimGafSZEfemWXXdN=afWJWk17a30Vt-ig at mail dot gmail dot com> <20131112193015 dot GZ27813 at tucnak dot zalov dot cz> <20131112234704 dot GF27813 at tucnak dot zalov dot cz> <20131112234926 dot GG27813 at tucnak dot zalov dot cz> <CAN=P9pj+vFfk36z-Tg0CUyQuWHw4NcfwjXx3tnewGwnyzctXgw at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:45:54AM +0400, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
> Many thanks, Jakub.
> I don't want to appear in this situation again.
> Would you suggest a place to create a wiki page which would list all
> required steps to test libsanitizer?
> libsanitizer is (unfortunately) a very system-dependent beast and our
> upstream commits will break other platforms regularly;
> that's unavoidable unless each platform's community helps us test the
> code upstream. (I.e. I encourage PowerPC folks to help us in the LLVM
Maybe it should be removed completely then, if you are going to break things on
a regular basis. Or at least made a configuration option that is OFF by
default. Or kept in a branch.
> For gcc merges, all we can promise to do is to run any amount of
> testing (described on a to-be-created wiki) on an x86_64 linux
> For other kinds of testing we'll rely on the platform owners.
> If we break someone's platform, we expect the owners to send us
> patches which we can commit upstream. That's what happened with x32
> last week.
NO, NO, NO, NO. We have the GCC compile farm for a reason. Use it to test
system dependent changes before committing them to the trunk.
I have too much on my plate that I'm scrambling to get my changes done before
stage1 closes. I don't have time or engery to fix code that other people
I'm sorry, but I'm really getting annoyed by the length of time it has taken to
get this resolved.
Michael Meissner, IBM
IBM, M/S 2506R, 550 King Street, Littleton, MA 01460, USA
email: firstname.lastname@example.org, phone: +1 (978) 899-4797