Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Michael Veksler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | [Gaby wants Vincent to explain:] | Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | # This is complete non-sense. One doesn't prepare a patch for an invalid | # bug. | | [Michael tries to interpret Vincent:] | | I think that what Vincent meant was: | |

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 20/06/2005 11:13:35: > On Jun 20, 2005 09:51 AM, Michael Veksler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Despite being descriptive and friendly, bug masters > > frustrate me and other users by being too eager > > to close the PR. I would suggest a policy c

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Jun 20, 2005 09:51 AM, Michael Veksler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Despite being descriptive and friendly, bug masters > frustrate me and other users by being too eager > to close the PR. I would suggest a policy change, > a PR should be closed (as duplicate or as INVALID) > only after discuss

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

[Gaby wants Vincent to explain:] Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: # This is complete non-sense. One doesn't prepare a patch for an invalid # bug. [Michael tries to interpret Vincent:] | I think that what Vincent meant was: | "One doesn't prepare a patch for a PR marked as INVALID"

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On 2005-06-19, at 17:59, Vincent Lefevre wrote: On 2005-06-19 09:57:33 -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote: Also I think GCC is not the one who is defining it either. It is glibc who is defining that so complain to them instead. Thanks for the information (I'm a bit surprised because these are gcc

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2005-06-19 11:12:49 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > > Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | Other solutions that would fix the bug (but not ultimate solutions): > > | 1) Do not claim that gcc is a conforming ISO C implementation. > > >

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On 2005-06-19 17:33:55 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > Then, care to explain > >On 2005-06-19 11:47:16 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >> since you seem OK with that solution, would you mind preparing a patch? >> (discussions are not executables; someone needs to make things happen.)

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On 2005-06-19 09:57:33 -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote: | > Also I think GCC is not the one who is defining it either. It is | > glibc who is defining that so complain to them instead. | | Thanks for the information (I'm a bit surprised because these are g

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Michael Veksler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 19/06/2005 18:33:55: | | > Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | > | On 2005-06-19 15:47:58 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > | > If you think it is an invalid bug, then it effectively is a complete | > | > non-

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On 2005-06-19 09:57:33 -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote: > Also I think GCC is not the one who is defining it either. It is > glibc who is defining that so complain to them instead. Thanks for the information (I'm a bit surprised because these are gcc command-line options that are the first cause of the

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On 2005-06-19 13:16:33 +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote: | > What exactly do you want to _achieve_ with this thread? Please, do tell, | > because you've completely lost most of us by now, I'm sure. | | Just that the problem should be considered as a bug,

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On 2005-06-19 15:54:20 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | Yes, and if GCC developers think it is better to lie concerning the > | C standard comformance, this could be acceptable when such an option > | is given, but this should be clearly documented. A

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Thank you very much. Note that you're "re-closed" is incorrect because a SUSPENDED bug is still open (but suspended); look at bugzilla's documentation... This is important for the above reasons and also because users will be able to see this bug when searching on bugzilla (let's hope that this wil

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 19/06/2005 18:33:55: > Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | On 2005-06-19 15:47:58 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > | > If you think it is an invalid bug, then it effectively is a complete > | > non-sense that you continue making noise on this list abo

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On 2005-06-19 13:16:33 +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote: > What exactly do you want to _achieve_ with this thread? Please, do tell, > because you've completely lost most of us by now, I'm sure. Just that the problem should be considered as a bug, and not a bug in the users' code (for some of them), n

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On 2005-06-19 15:47:58 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > If you think it is an invalid bug, then it effectively is a complete | > non-sense that you continue making noise on this list about it. | | I've never said that I thought it was an invalid bu

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On 2005-06-19 15:47:58 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > If you think it is an invalid bug, then it effectively is a complete > non-sense that you continue making noise on this list about it. I've never said that I thought it was an invalid bug. > FWIW, I would remind you that this is not news:fr

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Jun 19, 2005, at 9:54 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Yes, and if GCC developers think it is better to lie concerning the | C standard comformance, this could be acceptable when such an option | is given, but this should be clearly documented. Accord

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On 2005-06-19 11:17:47 +0100, Haren Visavadia wrote: | > --- Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > > Vincent Lefevre writes: | > > | > > | Other solutions that would fix the bug (but not | > > ultimate solutions): | > > | 1) Do not claim that gcc is a conformin

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Haren Visavadia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | --- Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > Vincent Lefevre writes: | > | > | Other solutions that would fix the bug (but not | > ultimate solutions): | > | 1) Do not claim that gcc is a conforming ISO C | > implementation. | > | > As far as I can see, there is

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On 2005-06-19 11:47:16 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > since you seem OK with that solution, would you mind preparing a patch? | > (discussions are not executables; someone needs to make things happen.) | | This is complete non-sense. One doesn't

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Jun 19, 2005 12:55 PM, Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2005-06-19 11:47:16 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > > since you seem OK with that solution, would you mind preparing a patch? > > (discussions are not executables; someone needs to make things happen.) > > This is complet

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On 2005-06-19 11:17:47 +0100, Haren Visavadia wrote: > --- Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > > Vincent Lefevre writes: > > > > | Other solutions that would fix the bug (but not > > ultimate solutions): > > | 1) Do not claim that gcc is a conforming ISO C > > implementation. > > > > As far as I can see, t

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On 2005-06-19 11:47:16 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > since you seem OK with that solution, would you mind preparing a patch? > (discussions are not executables; someone needs to make things happen.) This is complete non-sense. One doesn't prepare a patch for an invalid bug. -- Vincent Lefèvr

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On 2005-06-19 11:42:04 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | I don't understand your "IEEE = IEEE". To make things clearer: > | IEEE 754 explicitly allows an extended exponent range. The ISO C > | language doesn't. But this can be solved by stores, then

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

--- Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > Vincent Lefevre writes: > > | Other solutions that would fix the bug (but not > ultimate solutions): > | 1) Do not claim that gcc is a conforming ISO C > implementation. > > As far as I can see, there is no such claim. It's implied when using -std=c99

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On 2005-06-19 10:59:24 +0200, Mattias Karlsson wrote: | > On Sun, 19 Jun 2005, Vincent Lefevre wrote: | > | > >>Since the "gcc-is-buggy" solution of changing x87 rounding modes will: | > >>1) Be a lot of work. | > >>2) Cause a lot of regressions. | >

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | I don't understand your "IEEE = IEEE". To make things clearer: | IEEE 754 explicitly allows an extended exponent range. The ISO C | language doesn't. But this can be solved by stores, then there | wouldn't by any problem as far as the standards are con

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005, Vincent Lefevre wrote: Since the "gcc-is-buggy" solution of changing x87 rounding modes will: 1) Be a lot of work. 2) Cause a lot of regressions. This remains to see. BTW, the Opteron uses SSE by default. Did you see a lot of regressions? Opteron is not an issue, when I

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On 2005-06-19 11:12:49 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | Other solutions that would fix the bug (but not ultimate solutions): > | 1) Do not claim that gcc is a conforming ISO C implementation. > > As far as I can see, there is no such claim. The stan

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On 2005-06-19 10:59:24 +0200, Mattias Karlsson wrote: > On Sun, 19 Jun 2005, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > >>Since the "gcc-is-buggy" solution of changing x87 rounding modes will: > >>1) Be a lot of work. > >>2) Cause a lot of regressions. > > > >This remains to see. BTW, the Opteron uses SSE by defa

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Other solutions that would fix the bug (but not ultimate solutions): | 1) Do not claim that gcc is a conforming ISO C implementation. As far as I can see, there is no such claim. -- Gaby

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On 2005-06-18 18:01:33 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote: > Laurent GUERBY wrote: > >If you code run in extra range issue then you'll get "expected" > >results on x86 and it will fail everywhere else, a nice > >way to detect those issues indeed (and you won't face > >this if you developped your code on non

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005, Vincent Lefevre wrote: Since the "gcc-is-buggy" solution of changing x87 rounding modes will: 1) Be a lot of work. 2) Cause a lot of regressions. This remains to see. BTW, the Opteron uses SSE by default. Did you see a lot of regressions? Opteron is not an issue, when I

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On 2005-06-18 16:45:06 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote: > Mattias Karlsson wrote: > > >Since the "gcc-is-buggy" solution of changing x87 rounding modes will: > >1) Be a lot of work. > >2) Cause a lot of regressions. > > To this you can add > > 3) generate less efficient code Not by changing the rou

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On 2005-06-18 15:51:50 +0200, Mattias Karlsson wrote: > Anyway my point of view is that the solution to anyone needing > strict IEEE semantics are: You are wrong. IEEE allows extended precision. We are talking about *ISO C99* semantics. > 1) Use -float-store Note: -ffloat-store. This is not a so

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On 2005-06-18 13:52:01 +0200, Toon Moene wrote: > Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > >Saying that the x86 processor is buggy is just completely silly. > >Only some gcc developers think so. > > No, Kahan thinks so too (sorry, can't come up with a link just right > now). I'd be very interested in such a

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: I suspect the real question is which kind of codes and how they are representative. Absolutely, and my general rule is that optimizations are disappointing, which has a corrolary that removing an optimization is not necessarily disappointing in terms of performance :-)

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Laurent GUERBY wrote: | > On Sat, 2005-06-18 at 16:45 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote: | > | >>Mattias Karlsson wrote: | >> | >> | >>>Since the "gcc-is-buggy" solution of changing x87 rounding modes will: | >>>1) Be a lot of work. | >>>2) Cause a lot of regress

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Laurent GUERBY wrote: On Sat, 2005-06-18 at 17:37 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote: Changing the default rounding of the processor will make code less efficient? Yes, if you have to change it backwards and forwards for float and double Quite rare. Only usage I've seen is for tabulation when yo

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Sat, 2005-06-18 at 17:37 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote: > > Changing the default rounding of the processor will make code less > > efficient? > Yes, if you have to change it backwards and forwards for float and > double Quite rare. Only usage I've seen is for tabulation when you want to save stor

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Laurent GUERBY wrote: On Sat, 2005-06-18 at 16:45 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote: Mattias Karlsson wrote: Since the "gcc-is-buggy" solution of changing x87 rounding modes will: 1) Be a lot of work. 2) Cause a lot of regressions. To this you can add 3) generate less efficient code Changing

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Sat, 2005-06-18 at 16:45 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote: > Mattias Karlsson wrote: > > > Since the "gcc-is-buggy" solution of changing x87 rounding modes will: > > 1) Be a lot of work. > > 2) Cause a lot of regressions. > > To this you can add > >3) generate less efficient code Changing the d

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Mattias Karlsson wrote: Since the "gcc-is-buggy" solution of changing x87 rounding modes will: 1) Be a lot of work. 2) Cause a lot of regressions. To this you can add 3) generate less efficient code 4) cause some algorithms that work now to fail

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005, Robert Dewar wrote: Mattias Karlsson wrote: On Sat, 18 Jun 2005, Robert Dewar wrote: Mattias Karlsson wrote: Don't know about you, but I consider any processor that is unable to store a register to memory and then read back the same value to be buggy. THe x86/x87 doe

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Toon Moene wrote: The new thing I learned from your mail is the above. If GCC can support this, than we can properly solve PR/323. This is independent of whether I recall the thing I read in the past correctly. Interesting, let me restudy PR/323 ...

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Robert Dewar wrote: Well, I haven't studied this to such a great detail because I (according to Kahan) belong to the group of people who "don't care about floating point accuracy because their code is so robust they can even run on Cray's", but doesn't this mean that we can solve it in the com

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Toon Moene wrote: Well, I haven't studied this to such a great detail because I (according to Kahan) belong to the group of people who "don't care about floating point accuracy because their code is so robust they can even run on Cray's", but doesn't this mean that we can solve it in the compi

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Mattias Karlsson wrote: On Sat, 18 Jun 2005, Robert Dewar wrote: Mattias Karlsson wrote: Don't know about you, but I consider any processor that is unable to store a register to memory and then read back the same value to be buggy. THe x86/x87 does not violate this requirement In my Ob

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

By the way, we had one customer recently report an experiment of using -march=pentium4 -fpmath=sse on a big application and seeing a 5% improvement in performance. This customer incidentally had reported a bug under the title "intel x86 numeric nightmare", which was another version of PR/323 in th

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

> Well, I haven't studied this to such a great detail because I (according > to Kahan) belong to the group of people who "don't care about floating > point accuracy because their code is so robust they can even run on > Cray's", but doesn't this mean that we can solve it in the compiler by > ha

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005, Robert Dewar wrote: Mattias Karlsson wrote: Don't know about you, but I consider any processor that is unable to store a register to memory and then read back the same value to be buggy. THe x86/x87 does not violate this requirement In my Obi-Wan-Point-Of-View it does.

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Robert Dewar wrote: I wrote: Unfortunately, somewhere in the design process of the 8087 things went wrong and the chip only handles 8 80-bit registers, not providing an interrupt (or any other support) to an OS to fake the "virtual" 80-bit registers. This is nonsense. It is perfectly pos

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Toon Moene wrote: Vincent Lefevre wrote: Unfortunately, somewhere in the design process of the 8087 things went wrong and the chip only handles 8 80-bit registers, not providing an interrupt (or any other support) to an OS to fake the "virtual" 80-bit registers. This is nonsense. It is per

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Sylvain Pion wrote: That would indeed be a funny kind of processor, but x86 can store its registers in memory exactly : simply store/reread them as long doubles. There was indeed a processor (I think by Honeywell) where the fpt accumulator had extra precision bits that could not be stored in m

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Mattias Karlsson wrote: Don't know about you, but I consider any processor that is unable to store a register to memory and then read back the same value to be buggy. THe x86/x87 does not violate this requirement

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Vincent Lefevre wrote: Saying that the x86 processor is buggy is just completely silly. Only some gcc developers think so. No, Kahan thinks so too (sorry, can't come up with a link just right now). The original plan for x87 extended precision floating point was to have a small stack of 80-b

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 12:54:40PM +0200, Mattias Karlsson wrote: > On Sat, 18 Jun 2005, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > >On 2005-06-16 17:54:03 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote: > >>As you well know, not everyone agrees this is a bug, and this does > >>not have to do with performance. Saying over and over ag

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005, Vincent Lefevre wrote: On 2005-06-16 17:54:03 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote: As you well know, not everyone agrees this is a bug, and this does not have to do with performance. Saying over and over again that you think it is a bug does not make it so. I haven't seen any corre

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Saturday 18 June 2005 02:52 am, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > Saying that the x86 processor is buggy is just completely silly. > Only some gcc developers think so. Yeah, the smart ones. -- Patrick "Diablo-D3" McFarland || [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affec

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On 2005-06-16 17:54:03 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote: > As you well know, not everyone agrees this is a bug, and this does > not have to do with performance. Saying over and over again that you > think it is a bug does not make it so. I haven't seen any correct argument why it could not be a bug. Sayi

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Thursday, June 16, 2005, at 10:26 AM, Roberto Bagnara wrote: OK, you did not have time to check the standard... perhaps it is the word "bugmaster" that generates unreasonable expectations. Think of them as BugMonkeys if it helps. :-)

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Vincent Lefevre wrote: What about having the choice? That's fine, provided there are really well defined semantic rules for what the options do, these options need designing by people who are experts in floating-point semantics. Anyway, if the only reason is the performance, then the bug sho

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On 2005-06-16 13:37:23 -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote: > This is not a superficial comment, my whole point with that comment > is that GCC does not __currently__ implement any other rounding mode > than the default one which is not what you want but hey it is what GCC > currently does. Based on this c

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On 2005-06-16 12:34:27 -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote: > Well abandoning x87 was a joke, I was trying to get the point across > that this is long standing "problem" with x87. If you go and search > you will see this comes up every year since at least 1998 before > EGCS was officially GCC. In the bug

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On 2005-06-16 12:12:26 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote: > Everyone would agree that per se unnecessary non-determinism is a > bad thing. Yes, but not all people would agree on the meaning of "necessary" (for performance? for security?). > However, most people would also agree that poor performance > is

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

> > > On Jun 16, 2005, at 1:26 PM, Roberto Bagnara wrote: > > > First, I would like to clarify I do not consider it rude. > > > > But I do not consider it a good thing that, after this superficial > > comment > > of yours, you did not even care to reply to my further arguments and > > question

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Jun 16, 2005, at 1:26 PM, Roberto Bagnara wrote: First, I would like to clarify I do not consider it rude. But I do not consider it a good thing that, after this superficial comment of yours, you did not even care to reply to my further arguments and question. This is precisely the kind

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Andrew Pinski wrote: > > On Jun 16, 2005, at 10:58 AM, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > >> Daniel Berlin wrote: >> >>> Again, *please* provide examples other than "The bugmasters are mean". >> >> >> Don't invent quotes. I never said anyone was "mean." And other people >> have provided explicitly links t

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Jun 16, 2005, at 10:11 AM, Mark Hahn wrote: I'm answering that since this is plainly wrong. Bug 21809 was closed by yourself on 2005-05-29. This is not 1999! You deny that Bug 21809 is the same bug as Bug 323, which was closed in 1999? Again, this is a place where you disagree that this

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Scott Robert Ladd wrote: 1) Bugmasters could be less perfunctory and pejorative in their comments. Examples have been given. Quoting ESR these days is perhaps not really in vogue, but I've always found this document to be extremely helpful:

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Vincent Lefevre wrote: BTW, unpredictability, such as in bug 323, is not a bug (according to the C standard). This may be seen as a bad behavior and changing this behavior would be a great improvement, but I don't complain about it here when saying "bug". Everyone would agree that per se unnec

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On 2005-06-16 08:12:24 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote: > I should also note that *you* seem to equate "disagreement with your > viewpoint" with "wrong", "obstinate", or "ignorant", which is not the > case. Just because someone disagrees with your views on floating point > does not make them wrong, stu

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On 2005-06-16 08:20:20 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote: > You deny that Bug 21809 is the same bug as Bug 323, which was closed > in 1999? Yes: Bug 323 as originally reported is really invalid. The C standard doesn't guarantee that y and y2 should exactly be the same value. However bug 21809 (like *some

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

--- Andrew Pinski wrote: > Four out of how many? This can not be measured (ie unpredictable), unless you suggesting you are 100% deterministic on every new bug presented to you. ___ How much free photo storage do you g

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > Sometimes, some people come to GCC developers with the assumptions > that they must be obscure ignorant and miles-of-code-writers-without- > thinking and as such are very willing to endlessly lecture them about > how ignorant they are and how they should do their jobs. I

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Jun 16, 2005, at 10:58 AM, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: Daniel Berlin wrote: Again, *please* provide examples other than "The bugmasters are mean". Don't invent quotes. I never said anyone was "mean." And other people have provided explicitly links to germane bugs. Four out of how many? The

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Daniel Berlin wrote: > If you consider that "unfriendly", then you really need to get out of > the development business, because you need a thicker skin. Oh, my skin's thick enough. And my skull, too. :) Perhaps there is misinterpretation all around. ..Scott

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > I think what gets peoples' blood pressure up is | > endless discussion about how they ought to do their | > business. | | Try publishing a compiler review, and listen to the kibitzers. :) | | I've been writing for publication all my adult life; j

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Darn me all the heck. I said I wasn't going to say anything more... bad Scott, bad Scott! > again and again and again and again (which i'm sure you'll say is us > "not listening to the user community", which is not the case). I hate to disappoint you, but those words won't grace this message. I u

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 10:58 -0400, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > Daniel Berlin wrote: > > Again, *please* provide examples other than "The bugmasters are mean". > > Don't invent quotes. I never said anyone was "mean." And other people > have provided explicitly links to germane bugs. Again, i'm look

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 10:51 -0400, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > Dan Kegel wrote: > > And then there's the GCC summit, if you're really serious. > > I'd certainly love to attend, but can't afford it with the medical bills > we've accumulated. Hospitalizing both the primary bread-winners has a > drama

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Daniel Berlin wrote: > Again, *please* provide examples other than "The bugmasters are mean". Don't invent quotes. I never said anyone was "mean." And other people have provided explicitly links to germane bugs. > You are more than free to post designs on gcc@ if you want. However, you > seem to

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Jun 16, 2005, at 10:13 AM, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: | | > 1) Bugmasters could be less perfunctory and pejorative in their | > comments. Examples have been given. | | But you don't see all the thank you emails I get too because they are | almost alwa

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 10:13 -0400, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > Daniel Berlin wrote: > > Maybe you should start naming names, so we can take stock of the > > problem. > > Because of Acovea and my reviews of GCC (there are two more coming, one > in a print magazine), a lot of people write me privatel

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Dan Kegel wrote: > And then there's the GCC summit, if you're really serious. I'd certainly love to attend, but can't afford it with the medical bills we've accumulated. Hospitalizing both the primary bread-winners has a dramatic affect on finances. ;) > I think what gets peoples' blood pressure

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Thursday 16 June 2005 16:39, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > > Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | 2) A mentoring system could help bring along new GCC developers. I'm > > | not talking about hand-holding, I'm suggesting that having some place > > | for peopl

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | 2) A mentoring system could help bring along new GCC developers. I'm not > | talking about hand-holding, I'm suggesting that having some place for > | people to ask a few questions, one on one, to get over certain > | co

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Scott Robert Ladd wrote: I have ample evidence that many people feel that the GCC developer community is not very welcoming. I haven't found this to be the case. Perhaps that's because I try to control my urge to post frequently (oops, guess I'm screwing up here!), and because I try hard to co

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Mark Hahn wrote: > LKML is no different, except that it is probably somewhat more prominent, > and has developed some immunity/bouncers (kernel janitors, etc). Linux as has a vast body of educational material, including "kernel newbies". ..Scott

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | 2) A mentoring system could help bring along new GCC developers. I'm not | talking about hand-holding, I'm suggesting that having some place for | people to ask a few questions, one on one, to get over certain | conceptual humps. Such a place does e

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Jun 16, 2005, at 10:13 AM, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: 1) Bugmasters could be less perfunctory and pejorative in their comments. Examples have been given. But you don't see all the thank you emails I get too because they are almost always in a private email. And most of the time I don't clos

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Daniel Berlin wrote: > Maybe you should start naming names, so we can take stock of the > problem. Because of Acovea and my reviews of GCC (there are two more coming, one in a print magazine), a lot of people write me privately. This happens with commercial compilers as well... and combining those

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

> > I'm answering that since this is plainly wrong. Bug 21809 was > > closed by yourself on 2005-05-29. This is not 1999! > > You deny that Bug 21809 is the same bug as Bug 323, which was closed in > 1999? > > Again, this is a place where you disagree that this should be considered > a "bug", but

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On 2005-06-16 07:43:17 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote: | > Again, please point to specific examples. | | GCC developers don't want examples. Vincent -- Yoir remark is inappropriate. Obviously, Daniel is a GCC developer. I guess you did not mean to

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 13:35 +0100, Haren Visavadia wrote: > --- Daniel Berlin wrote: > > Again, this is a place where you disagree that this > > should be considered > > a "bug", but refuse to believe that reasonable > > people can disagree on > > it. > > Well, Vincent has given detailed explainat

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Thursday 16 June 2005 08:20 am, Daniel Berlin wrote: > You deny that Bug 21809 is the same bug as Bug 323, which was closed in > 1999? No, clearly, its some form of time travel by aliens wanting to subvert GCC to their own evil purposes. Vincent is their leader. I, for one, welcome our new Le

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

--- Daniel Berlin wrote: > Again, this is a place where you disagree that this > should be considered > a "bug", but refuse to believe that reasonable > people can disagree on > it. Well, Vincent has given detailed explaination on his views. What do you mean by "reasonable" here?

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Thursday 16 June 2005 14:03, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2005-06-16 07:43:17 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > Again, please point to specific examples. > > GCC developers don't want examples. Perhaps not your examples, because your way of discussing so far is not exactly a very constructive one.

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 14:08 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2005-06-15 18:18:23 -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > But if you look how old it is, it is before really any bugmaster > > started. Also a main developer, RTH, closed it and he has been > > working on GCC since before 1999. > > I'm answe

  1   2   >