On September 17, 2021 6:30:21 PM GMT+02:00, Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote: >On 9/17/21 8:54 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: >> >> >> On 16/09/2021 16:44, Martin Sebor via Gcc wrote: >>> On 9/14/21 2:10 AM, Andrew Pinski via Gcc wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> I am doing some bugzilla cleanup. This includes disabling some >>>> components and some versions for new bugs. >>>> So far I have disabled versions before GCC 4 because we have not had a >>>> report from someone for those versions in over 7 years. I disabled >>>> some versions which are about developmental branches which are >>>> inactive too. >>>> I also disabled the java, libgcj, fastjar, libmudflap, treelang and >>>> libf2c components. >>>> >>>> I am in the process of moving away from having an inline-asm component >>>> to an inline-asm keyword instead; this was suggested on IRC and I >>>> agree. After the current open bugs have moved away from the >>>> inline-asm component, I will disable it also. >>>> >>>> If anyone else has any other suggestions that should be done, please >>>> let me know and I will look into doing it. >>> >>> Re: Keywords: I find it useful to differentiate between two kinds of >>> diagnostic bugs: false positives and false negatives (the latter for >>> existing warnings that don't trigger when intended, as opposed to >>> requests to enhance existing warnings or add new ones). I've been >>> using Personal Tags for this but it might be useful to others as >>> well. If you agree and add the corresponding new keywords >>> (false-positive and false-negative) I'll set them based on my Tags. >>> >>> One other suggestion: every once in a while someone asks if >>> ice-on-invalid-code bugs apply to syntactically well-formed code that >>> has undefined behavior (I don't believe it does). It would help to >>> clarify the Description for this Keyword (and, correspondingly, for >>> ice-on-valid). E.g., something like >>> >>> ice-on-invalid-code: ICE on code that is not syntactically valid. >>> ice-on-valid-code: ICE on code that is syntactically valid. >>> >> >> What about syntactically valid but semantically invalid code? I'd call >> that ICE-on-invalid as well. > >My understanding of the "valid" in the keyword is that it refers >only to syntactic validity AKA well-formedness.
Yes. >But I only set the keyword to help with bug triage, I don't actually >rely on it for anything myself. The interpretation should be based >on what its main consumers use it for. I expect Richard Biener (CC'd) >might be using it for his release planning activities and so might >want to weigh in on this. In fact syntactically valid code should not ICE and that's as important as semantically valid code not ICE. >Martin > >PS In bugs reported for my code in the middle end (often having to >do with detecting semantically invalid AKA undefined code), I use >ice-on-valid for well-formed test cases with undefined behavior. >I set ice-on-invalid only for the less common cases of syntactically >invalid code that somehow makes it into the middle-end or that's >analyzed in the front end. If this isn't right I'd like to know. That's correct. Richard.
