GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2008-11-17)

[Laurent GUERBY]

On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 00:39 +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Quality Data
> > ============
> >
> > Priority          #     Change from Last Report
> > --------        ---     -----------------------
> > P1               13     -  4
> > P2              114     - 27
> > P3                3     +- 0
> > --------        ---     -----------------------
> > Total           130     - 31
> >

> 
> [...] There are more bugs like this (maybe 12, 16 in total or so). I think
> that if you keep counting this kind of PRs in the "Quality Data", it
> gives a much darker (and, frankly, quite flawed) indication of the
> quality of the compiler. In fact, if you judge the state of GCC 4.4
> based on the Bugzilla regressions list, it is in surprisingly good
> state compared to GCC 4.3 (I don't know how many bugs GCC 4.4 has that
> are not regressions, of course).
> 
> In business-speak, one would probably say that just the number of
> regressions is not a good Key Performance Indicator ;-)

May be the summary could include a few more lines to distinguish
by keyword family then by priority. 

Here is a first cut of families limited to three so as to keep
the report readable:

1/ "real bugs" = has at least one of
wrong-code, rejects-valid, ice-on-valid, ice-checking, ABI, build, 
assemble-failure, link-failure

2/ "other bugs" = the rest with at least one keyword

3/ "no keyword" = so to be added, I assume cannot be P1/P2/P3

I assume a few reports in category 2 should be considered for release
like: 
- essential documentation or release note missing or incorrect
- wrong-debug with large impact
- compiled code performance regression likely to be seen widely
- compile time regression likely to be seen widely

These should be candidate for P1 and family 2 and 3.

My 0.02 c :).

Laurent