This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Revert libsanitizer patches or fix 59009

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
> land)

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
> machine.
> 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:, phone: +1 (978) 899-4797

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]