Re: Regressions in 3.2

["David S. Miller" <davem at redhat dot com>]

   From: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
   Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 10:18:12 -0700
   
   Let's make this clear: although the mainline is an appropriate place for
   new, sometimes destabilizing work, it's not a place for regressions.  If
   you've made a mess, it's your obligation to go clean up your mess as
   quickly as possible.

%99 of these problems existed long before DFA or any of the other
bigger changes have gone in.

I'm suspecting it is a bunch of "stuff that went into 3.1, but not
into the mainline where we should fix it 'properly'" and the
'properly' bit has slipped through the cracks.

I have this huge diff between the 3.1 branch and the mainline I did a
couple weeks ago before DFA and other big bits went in, and I still
have to go through the rest of it looking for problem causing
differences.

Frankly, I'm still spending the bulk of my time with 3.1 looking for
Sparc show stoppers I should fix in 3.1.1 To me my time is better
allocated to that and not the mainline.  I simply don't have the time
right now needed to look into the mainline regressions on Sparc.

I know that the Sparc backend is basically between the 3.1 branch and
the mainline, sans the DFA bits.  That was the first thing I verified
when I started diffing the mainline with the branch the other week.
No fixes have been lost in the Sparc backend.

I remember that noting in particular that there are a lot of
non-trivial differences in the c++ front end between the branch
and the mainline.  I am not very skilled in this area.  I also
note that the bulk of the Sparc regressions on the mainline are in the
libstdc++ and c++ torture testsuires.

Mark, it may be instructive for Jason or yourself to diff the branch
c++ frontend with the mainline and look for anything that sticks out
like a sore thumb.  Just a suggestion..