This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: To Steering Committee: RFC for patch revert policy (PR48403, bootstrap broken on many targets)
- From: Bernd Schmidt <bernds at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Cc: GCC Mailing List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, David Edelsohn <dje at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 00:52:36 +0200
- Subject: Re: To Steering Committee: RFC for patch revert policy (PR48403, bootstrap broken on many targets)
- References: <BANLkTi=AgWe2QOQ=bZ+a1XT7YQ1J1YKtyw@mail.gmail.com>
On 04/04/2011 11:58 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> In the PR audit trail, I've proposed to revert the patch, and HJ and
> Benjamin are also in favor of that. In Benjamin's works: Bootstrap has
> been broken for much too long, on all the common devel arches.
Which is not actually true, see the second-to-last message in that bug:
"But x86/Linux, x86-64/Linux, x86-64/Darwin, x86/Solaris and
SPARC/Solaris now bootstrap fine for me so there is some progress."
What's still broken is --disable-checking bootstrap on i686-linux. This
reproduces for me with both with a tree checked out at revision 171823,
which is the one before my checkins, and a current tree with my patches
reverted. There's a tendency for people to pile on an existing bugzilla
report rather than properly investigate what's actually causing their
problems.
What's left are failures on mips64-linux and ia64, which I'm
investigating now. I don't think anyone has done a proper analysis for
what caused them either, although I guess my prune_ready_list patch is a
major suspect. Clearly this is unfortunate, but I don't think these two
are common devel arches either, as claimed by Steven.
Bernd