This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: libsanitizer merge from upstream r208536
- From: Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>
- To: Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin dot s dot serebryany at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Peter Bergner <bergner at vnet dot ibm dot com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Marek Polacek <polacek at redhat 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>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, Yuri Gribov <tetra2005 at gmail dot com>
- Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 13:31:08 -0700
- Subject: Re: libsanitizer merge from upstream r208536
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAGQ9bdxH9rh0Cz8LBYZsuHKEFpkVosNkX2qrX10RGwK5hFEEqg at mail dot gmail dot com> <20140523134107 dot GC17600 at redhat dot com> <CAGQ9bdyPk5MmNDvpdkqkx=bXjSM6wO76dUwyPa0Krrp_OTjXfw at mail dot gmail dot com> <1400855109 dot 12948 dot 146 dot camel at otta> <1400863633 dot 12948 dot 152 dot camel at otta> <1400871287 dot 12948 dot 160 dot camel at otta> <CAGQ9bdx4aTvz_+5doCS3vg1QQ4BEQYriG7Rh-GtPShD-oTyRxg at mail dot gmail dot com> <20140526055736 dot GZ10386 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <CAGQ9bdxVhRKefUUM8xtDzsNA2qaWTa4gM-o-t8az=o+MQbATUA at mail dot gmail dot com> <1401157537 dot 7849 dot 5 dot camel at otta> <CAGQ9bdxpJ2i5aRee-KS-rpf=czKe_BUtZ+4kjoWS98BLMP_J6g at mail dot gmail dot com> <6E1096B9-D7B0-446B-8347-28F7F8CFA264 at comcast dot net> <CAGQ9bdzNbADOZeKxNeSRm+bsDcuzgShrZz1Zq33ViKiDDdDdEQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
On May 27, 2014, at 11:16 AM, Konstantin Serebryany <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Mike Stump <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On May 26, 2014, at 10:13 PM, Konstantin Serebryany <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2014-05-26 at 10:36 +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
>>>>> Because this is my default reply to any such case. :)
>>>> I hope that is a humorous reply and not a serious one.
>>> Not really humorous. Our position is and always was
>> We don’t expect a guarantee that you keep code working. Only that when _you_ break things that you try and help out as you can, and if you cannot, merely to ask others for help. Doesn’t seem to me to be an unreasonable position and seems to have worked fairly well for the past 27 years.
>> So, the right way to treat a regression that you hear about from the gcc side, is exactly the same way you handle a green to red transition on a build bot.
>> So, let me ask, when you break a build bot, is your first response to want to disable the port the regression is found with? If not, then why treat the regression found on the gcc side any different?
> If a bot breaks, we know about it within tens of minutes.
I appreciate that. I also appreciate that if all bugs in a checkin can be pointed out in 2 minutes, that is very nice indeed. All I can say is, we welcome your contribution to make that happen… but, despite that, it is generally impolite to put in bugs and say let’s remove the port that exposes the bug. If you can do no better, then at least ignore it, this is more polite. There will always be bugs, and you will always put some in. Life goes on.
> If we learn about breakage months later when design is finalized,
Software is never finalized, neither are designs.
> changing the design is much more work.
Yes, software is hard. :-) Just wait til you try and solve a problem that autoconf was design to solve, then you will hard truly turned to the dark side.
> Finally, there is a psychological aspect -- I get sad when I learn
> that I broke someone's code
Don’t be sad. Treat them as you would a slow running build bot. Try and make them green. :-)