This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Less radical proposal (was Re: Radical proposal: skip 3.4)
On Jan 10, 2004, at 5:09 PM, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Phil Edwards wrote:
So, here's a suggestion: during stage 3, this rule should be moreI've been fixing bugs. But it takes me a lot longer than it takes me
to implement structural improvements. :-/
vigourously ... eh, "enforced" isn't quite the word I want, but it's
For those two months, we really should be seeing more bugs fixed than
new code committed. Yah, I know fixing bugs isn't sexy, but getting
collective ass whomped by commercial compilers is even less sexy.
know nobody here wants to be the unpopular bully who vetos perfectly
new dev work during those two months, but I think it'll still be
Actually, what takes longer isn't *fixing* the bugs per se; it's
tracking them down. I like doing that, but (for me) it's sloooow
One of the things i love about LLVM is bugpoint.
It can tell you what pass is causing a bug, etc, just by handing it a
piece of code.
We *really* need something like it for GCC, but it will require being
able to parse dump output so that we can pass it to passes separately.
It also requires a clean separation of passes, something that exists in
tree-ssa, but i'm not so sure about the backend (at least, the few
times i've tried to move passes around so that they are run in a
different order, it ICE's in one way or another).