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
