Re: [PATCH] Add selftest for pretty-print.c (v2)

[Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>]

On 06/09/2016 07:30 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> The self-tests specifically abort the build and break bootstrap upon
> failure.  Most other changes that inadvertently have bugs or tickle a
> latent issue in a target will introduce some additional testsuite
> failures, not a bootstrap failure.  x86 developers seem to get quite
> annoyed when a patch causes a bootstrap failure for an x86
> configuration.
>
> Second, all of the large changes that may have unknown effects on
> various targets have been tested extensively on multiple
> architectures, as have most global optimization changes.  It may not
> be required, but it generally has been considered "good form" and has
> been a stipulation of patch approval by some reviewers.  It would be
> very unfortunate for GCC to lower the bar for patches by some
> developers and not others.
Let's all calm down a bit here.  Everyone here just wants to make a 
better compiler and mistakes happen.

What I see in David Malcolm's change is a fairly minor bug.  I don't 
think David (or anyone) could have really expected that %p is printed 
differently across different hosts and thus his patch would need wider 
host testing.  And AFAICT David addressed this issue as soon as he 
started his day.

So let's all take a deep breath and get back to improving GCC rather 
than taking jabs at each other.

jeff