This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Revert libsanitizer patches or fix 59009
- From: Michael Meissner <meissner at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google dot com>
- Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Michael Meissner <meissner at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, Evgeniy Stepanov <eugeni dot stepanov at gmail dot com>, Peter Bergner <bergner at vnet dot ibm dot com>, Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin dot s dot serebryany at gmail dot com>, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo dot med dot uc dot edu>, Alexander Potapenko <glider at google 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>
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:21:46 -0500
- Subject: Re: Revert libsanitizer patches or fix 59009
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAN=P9pjSZcDNN3sP6fxJ4V553mQPQihpsuWiCpDLUrw=gszMGg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAN=P9pjkzWkV_rQmcde-DKS8dg8xUjt+pyCUe_8yGMeCrBeRqQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <20131112180403 dot GA30956 at ibm-tiger dot the-meissners dot org> <CAN=P9pgPY-QcGMbm6k25fGS24qcTLXbZX8px+09n-oeG6O5ZzQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <20131112185704 dot GY27813 at tucnak dot zalov dot cz> <CAN=P9pibOvxQyDZzQimGafSZEfemWXXdN=afWJWk17a30Vt-ig at mail dot gmail dot com> <20131112193015 dot GZ27813 at tucnak dot zalov dot cz> <20131112234704 dot GF27813 at tucnak dot zalov dot cz> <20131112234926 dot GG27813 at tucnak dot zalov dot cz> <CAN=P9pj+vFfk36z-Tg0CUyQuWHw4NcfwjXx3tnewGwnyzctXgw at mail dot gmail dot com>
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
broke.
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: meissner@linux.vnet.ibm.com, phone: +1 (978) 899-4797