Re: [RFC] Closing of all remaining Bugzilla PRs against powerpcspe
On Sat, 9 May 2020 at 08:15, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > > Hi! > > On 5/9/20 12:15 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > I can do both, if you want, or just the first group? Your choice. > > > > But let's hear other opinions first. > > These bugs document the current issues with the backend as it existed > in gcc-8 (or was it -9)? The bugs are still in the removed code, so > I don't really understand what you gain by closing bugs? If the code has been removed, the bug no longer exists. What do you gain by keeping them open forever? > Is it important > to keep the number of open issues low? If you mean for PR reasons or good apeparances, no. But it's wrong to have bugs left open that only refer to unsupported versions of GCC. If none of the supported releases has the bug (either because it's been fixed, or the relevant code has been removed) then the bug should be closed. If the bug is still present in supported versions (like gcc-8 or gcc-9) but will never be fixed (like SPE ones) they might as well be closed now as WONTFIX. Suggesting anything else will happen to them is misleading. > I don't consider bug reports a bad thing, they document the code quality > and are a useful resource to anyone working on the code or using these > versions. A closed bug report doesn't disappear from the database. It just documents that the bug report has (probably) reached a terminal state and no work will be done on it.
Re: [RFC] Closing of all remaining Bugzilla PRs against powerpcspe
On 5/9/20 10:31 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > If you mean for PR reasons or good apeparances, no. But it's wrong to > have bugs left open that only refer to unsupported versions of GCC. If > none of the supported releases has the bug (either because it's been > fixed, or the relevant code has been removed) then the bug should be > closed. > > If the bug is still present in supported versions (like gcc-8 or > gcc-9) but will never be fixed (like SPE ones) they might as well be > closed now as WONTFIX. Suggesting anything else will happen to them is > misleading. If you don't accept my opinion, why did you ask for it in the first place. Please do whatever you want. I will still continue to contribute to GCC and start BountySource campaigns to support, despite my opinion not being of any relevance. Thanks, Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Re: [RFC] Closing of all remaining Bugzilla PRs against powerpcspe
> Strangely, I failed to find any PR for e200, so maybe some unnoticed ones > are still lying around. I think that the e200 support was never contributed upstream. -- Eric Botcazou
Re: [RFC] Closing of all remaining Bugzilla PRs against powerpcspe
> Otherwise, I'm proposing to finally close all open PRs filed against > powerpcspe. I've been able to identify the following ones: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19490 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30259 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37759 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37760 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47856 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47977 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49854 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51905 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57389 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57872 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71012 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86133 > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79438 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79451 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80700 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81288 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81628 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82138 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84302 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85121 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85170 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87083 I'd also like to nominate the following two: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52927 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60158 which I also cannot close myself. There won't be any further revisions of this list by me.
Re: [RFC] Closing of all remaining Bugzilla PRs against powerpcspe
On 5/9/20 12:31 PM, Arseny Solokha wrote: > I'd also like to nominate the following two: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52927 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60158 > > which I also cannot close myself. There won't be any further revisions of this > list by me. They affect given older versions, so if you just close them, that would imply that the bug in question in gcc-4.5.3 has been dealt with - which I assume is not the case. So, again, I'm not sure what you gain by closing these bugs. Having them marked as open means that someone has observed the issue with a certain gcc version and target. Moving it to "closed" just expresses that some people don't care about this bug anymore. But it doesn't change the fact that the bug still exists. The only thing you gain by closing such bugs is that you are reducing the number of open bug reports and you can somehow claim you fixed a bug. Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Re: [RFC] Closing of all remaining Bugzilla PRs against powerpcspe
On Sat, 9 May 2020 at 19:56, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > > On 5/9/20 12:31 PM, Arseny Solokha wrote: > > I'd also like to nominate the following two: > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52927 > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60158 > > > > which I also cannot close myself. There won't be any further revisions of > > this > > list by me. > > They affect given older versions, so if you just close them, that would imply > that the bug in question in gcc-4.5.3 has been dealt with - which I assume > is not the case. Did you bother to read my reply? Closing a bug means no more work will be done, not that work has already been done. > So, again, I'm not sure what you gain by closing these bugs. Having them > marked > as open means that someone has observed the issue with a certain gcc version > and target. Please read my first email to you. > Moving it to "closed" just expresses that some people don't care about this > bug anymore. But it doesn't change the fact that the bug still exists. Please read my first email to you. > The only thing you gain by closing such bugs is that you are reducing the > number of open bug reports and you can somehow claim you fixed a bug. No, it doesn't claim anything was fixed, please read my first email to you.
Re: [RFC] Closing of all remaining Bugzilla PRs against powerpcspe
On Sat, 9 May 2020 at 09:56, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > > On 5/9/20 10:31 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > If you mean for PR reasons or good apeparances, no. But it's wrong to > > have bugs left open that only refer to unsupported versions of GCC. If > > none of the supported releases has the bug (either because it's been > > fixed, or the relevant code has been removed) then the bug should be > > closed. > > > > If the bug is still present in supported versions (like gcc-8 or > > gcc-9) but will never be fixed (like SPE ones) they might as well be > > closed now as WONTFIX. Suggesting anything else will happen to them is > > misleading. > > If you don't accept my opinion, why did you ask for it in the first place. Eh? This is the first time I've said anything on the subject, I didn't ask for anything, and I didn't say that I don't accept your opinion, and I certainly didn't say the rets of the GCC project doesn't accept your opinion. You asked questions about closing bugs, and I answered them. If you don't accept straightforward answers, why did you ask questions in the first place? > Please do whatever you want. I will still continue to contribute to GCC > and start BountySource campaigns to support, despite my opinion not being > of any relevance. That seems a rather silly overreaction to somebody replying to you, answering your questions.
gcc-10-20200509 is now available
Snapshot gcc-10-20200509 is now available on https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10-20200509/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 10 git branch with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch releases/gcc-10 revision 986e80d520e84a85b81d2e0c378d73f3e8a93f78 You'll find: gcc-10-20200509.tar.xz Complete GCC SHA256=1170529bf9d5fb7111a1bf73593335d5bff400e22746efb80497aa96e8e3b86f SHA1=2d8dd37c00131ba58a5459de1d728958336e8afd Diffs from 10-20200502 are available in the diffs/ subdirectory. When a particular snapshot is ready for public consumption the LATEST-10 link is updated and a message is sent to the gcc list. Please do not use a snapshot before it has been announced that way.
