On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 13:58, David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-02-15 at 12:55 +0000, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote: > > On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 12:34, Baruch Burstein via Gcc < > > gcc@gcc.gnu.org> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I hope it is not inappropriate to call attention to a specific bug. > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla//show_bug.cgi?id=85487. > > > I tried to do it myself, but got lost on the part where I needed to > > > compile gcc 3 times and compare test results to some (un)known test > > > results. > > Thanks for trying to fix the bug. > > > > > > > You compare the test results of your patched gcc to the test results > > of an > > unpatched gcc. > > > > How did you get lost? To "compile gcc 3 times" you just run "make", > > and it > > does that automatically (unless you configured with --disable- > > bootstrap, in > > which case it just compiles once). > > Jonathan, if I may: you're extremely familiar with hacking on GCC, and > I think that familiarity is leading you to underestimate the learning > curve for someone new getting involved in GCC development. > > As you say, --disable-bootstrap is the configure-time option to use > when working on a new patch, since it avoids the "compile 3 times" > cycle. We could probably document that better. > Agreed. So it would help to know which docs Baruch was looking at when getting lost. There's no point adding *more* docs if we already have some that are doing more harm than good. > > > > > > > > It was too much time and setup for a fix that will probably > > > take 2 minutes to implement, so I am asking if someone that already > > > contributes to gcc can please look at this. I think it should only > > > take a couple of minutes to implement. > > Baruch: here you are underestimating the time that adding a new feature > takes; yes, it perhaps could take about 2 minutes to get a minimal > proof-of-concept working, but once you start adding documentation, > test-cases, etc it becomes more than that. Also, looking at the > discussion now happening in the bug report, it's not clear that the > absolute minimum implementation is the correct one > > I'm guessing that you care because you're working in a mixed Visual > Studio/GCC environment, and have a codebase with these pragmas. > Does Visual Studio complain about mismatches, or incorrect nesting? > If so, can you give some more information about these interoperability > issues being discussed in the bug report? > (I used to work in such an environment, but that was over 20 years ago; > my knowledge of Visual Studio is *very* out of date, sorry) > Clang and the MSVC compiler both ignore any tokens after the pragma, so that seems good enough for GCC too: https://godbolt.org/z/norv947a5
