This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org 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


[plain text]
So far I was not able to reproduce the compilation failure -- and I am
asking someone from the PowerPC side to help.
Please apply any minimal #ifdef patch to
sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cc to make it compile, while keeping
x86_64 tests pass.

If we revert the patch now, I will not be able to work on it again in
nearest months, which means 4.9 will not get updated asan.
How bad that is -- I don't know.

--kcc

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc@google.com> wrote:
> So far I was not able to reproduce the compilation failure -- and I am
> asking someone from the PowerPC side to help.
> Please apply any minimal #ifdef patch to sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cc
> to make it compile, while keeping x86_64 tests pass.
>
> If we revert the patch now, I will not be able to work on it again in
> nearest months, which means 4.9 will not get updated asan.
> How bad that is -- I don't know.
>
> --kcc
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Michael Meissner
> <meissner@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>> It has been a week since the libsanitizer patches were checked in, which
>> broke
>> the PowerPC64 Linux system along with others (PR 59009 for powerpc).
>> Please
>> revert these patches while you are working on proper fixes for all of the
>> hosts
>> and targets.
>>
>> Quoting from the GCC development plan:
>>
>> Patch Reversion
>>
>> If a patch is committed which introduces a regression on any target which
>> the
>> Steering Committee considers to be important and if:
>>
>> the problem is reported to the original poster; 48 hours pass without the
>> original poster or any other party indicating that a fix will be
>> forthcoming in
>> the very near future; two people with write privileges to the affected
>> area of
>> the compiler determine that the best course of action is to revert the
>> patch;
>> then they may revert the patch.
>>
>> (The list of important targets will be revised at the beginning of each
>> release
>> cycle, if necessary, and is part of the release criteria.)
>>
>> After the patch has been reverted, the poster may appeal the decision to
>> the
>> Steering Committee.
>>
>> Note that no distinction is made between patches which are themselves
>> buggy and
>> patches that expose latent bugs elsewhere in the compiler.
>>
>> --
>> Michael Meissner, IBM
>> IBM, M/S 2506R, 550 King Street, Littleton, MA 01460, USA
>> email: meissner@linux.vnet.ibm.com, 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]