This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: To Steering Committee: RFC for patch revert policy (PR48403, bootstrap broken on many targets)

From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
To: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>
Cc: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Bernd Schmidt <bernds at codesourcery dot com>, Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>, 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 08:19:30 -0600
Subject: Re: To Steering Committee: RFC for patch revert policy (PR48403, bootstrap broken on many targets)
References: <BANLkTi=AgWe2QOQ=bZ+a1XT7YQ1J1YKtyw@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTimAnuOTs4Zn-styegJGiHnPPJk_fw@mail.gmail.com> <4D9B1C68.5000206@redhat.com> <201104051615.59381.ebotcazou@adacore.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 04/05/11 08:15, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> I the case of the current x86 breakage, the only problem I've been aware
>> of was an internal report from bkoz that bootstrap was breaking on
>> x86_64 (with no other details).  Meanwhile my bootstraps were running
>> fine.  It wasn't until HJ's autotester reported the key
>> "--disable-checking" configury bits that we were able to confirm a
>> problem and start the real process of diagnosing what went wrong.
> 
> No, this isn't what happened, see the audit trail of PR48403.  This was a big 
> breakage.  --disable-checking had nothing to do with the problem either.
- --disable-checking is the trigger for the bootstrap comparison failures
I'm tracking right now.  These may be separate from 48403.  Which
highlights the problem of reverting without doing an in-depth analysis
of the problem.

Jeff

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNmyTyAAoJEBRtltQi2kC79qIH/0+i+oE5gPYMvPmxuhNnVuAE
VIedv6UiVStBIxm/bCyaVDZHdiPnldEEoKfANe7UT8WmEXD/iRNYJ3ZBG7JU8Qk6
9Ahq8pSYaYsyRO2BJgiH2WIXJxz9qvH4BDYmxWUmJ+h80q0qnKlCrcZsgSqW4IIy
xwHa/ePXnXNmpuuRPpQFpv0pQgco4G7xDCUwn1UXZdkKCJulzHUwLcB1WP/urR/i
HPuLfbzyD62ZpI2NKfiCJAm5xOh/2RJYqs9XTKGg5qsBlOf/BQ2yERTSjWiLykF/
FgDbxydIcSJv7nUbcwNH6rrII1WFTCg4JRS8/RPSS8jtwkxTAVyEJhopncUDLl4=
=EzTa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

References:
- To Steering Committee: RFC for patch revert policy (PR48403, bootstrap broken on many targets)
  - From: Steven Bosscher
- Re: To Steering Committee: RFC for patch revert policy (PR48403, bootstrap broken on many targets)
  - From: Diego Novillo
- Re: To Steering Committee: RFC for patch revert policy (PR48403, bootstrap broken on many targets)
  - From: Jeff Law
- Re: To Steering Committee: RFC for patch revert policy (PR48403, bootstrap broken on many targets)
  - From: Eric Botcazou

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]