Re: Mainline now closed to all changes which do not fix regressions
Mark Mitchell wrote: As previously announced, here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-10/msg00093.html the mainline is now subject to the usual release-branch rules: only fixes for regressions. The development rules at <http://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html#stage3> use the word "bug", not the word "regression". Should I conclude that the rules have silently been changed or is this simply a sympton of a complete lack of interest in bugs that are not "regressions" ? Note by the way that Wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_testing> uses the full term "regression bug". The goal is to quickly reduce the current 219 oustanding regressions against 4.1 to approximately 100 -- in part by me retargeting some of the bugs -- so that we can create the 4.1 release branch. So, we have come to the point that not only old (and very old) bugs are retargeted (if they were ever targeted at all), but also the new "regression" bugs ? Sic transit gloria mundi ! Interestingly, one could argue that a retargeted (and thus unfixed) regression bug is no longer a regression bug, because it no longer "previously worked" Sincerely, Adriaan van Os
GNU Pascal branch
The GNU Pasal compiler <http://www.gnu-pascal.de> is maintained as a separate back-end project. The compiler can be built with gcc-2.8.1 up to gcc-3.4.x and preliminary support for gcc-4.0 was recently added (<http://www.gnu-pascal.de/crystal/gpc/en/thread13456.html>). A regular question is why gpc isn't integrated into the gcc repository. The answer is that simply the resources fail to maintain gpc on a daily basis on gcc mainline. Also, flexibility in choosing the back-end version sometimes has its advantages, dependent on the platform, given the fact that reported gcc bugs are not always fixed. Apropos, <http://gcc.gnu.org/backends.html> seems to be pointing to the wrong page now. Still, I would like to create a GNU Pascal branch for gcc. This will be a central place where to keep the compiler updated with * recent gpc snapshots * patches to the front-end, posted on the GNU Pascal mailing list <http://www.gnu-pascal.de/crystal/gpc/en/> (to add features or to fix bugs) * patches to the back-end and middle-end, needed to get things working for various targets. <http://gcc.gnu.org/svnwrite.html#branches> explains how to create a branch, so I am looking for a gcc maintainer to approve for write access (solely for the branch). I signed an FSF assignment for the GNU Pascal compiler on February 15, 2005 (OS/RT 220644). Sincerely, Adriaan van Os <http://www.microbizz.nl/gpc.html>
Re: GNU Pascal branch
The GNU Pasal compiler <http://www.gnu-pascal.de> is maintained as a separate back-end project. The compiler can be built with gcc-2.8.1 up to gcc-3.4.x and preliminary support for gcc-4.0 was recently added (<http://www.gnu-pascal.de/crystal/gpc/en/thread13456.html>). A regular question is why gpc isn't integrated into the gcc repository. The answer is that simply the resources fail to maintain gpc on a daily basis on gcc mainline. Also, flexibility in choosing the back-end version sometimes has its advantages, dependent on the platform, given the fact that reported gcc bugs are not always fixed. Apropos, <http://gcc.gnu.org/backends.html> seems to be pointing to the wrong page now. Sorry, it isn't, I mixed up "front-end" and "back-end". Sincerely, Adriaan van Os
Re: GNU Pascal branch
Steven Bosscher wrote: Adriaan van Os <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The answer is that simply the resources fail to maintain gpc on a daily basis on gcc mainline. It seems to me that integrating gpc would _reduce_ the burden on the gpc team, because you would get more regular testing the problem is not regular testing. and people are responsible for fixing all front ends when they do backend changes. I don't believe that, they would just say, "oh, it is broken" or "oh, it is not a primary language" or whatever excuse. The gpc folks would only have to worry about the front end. Also, flexibility in choosing the back-end version sometimes has its advantages, dependent on the platform, given the fact that reported gcc bugs are not always fixed. So you could help fix them, instead of forcing people to stick to older backends ;-) We are not forcing anybody, we offer full choice. Not fixing backend-end bugs is what is actually forcing people. And even patches that do fix bugs are often not accepted. Still, I would like to create a GNU Pascal branch for gcc. This will be a central place where to keep the compiler updated with What would be the benefits of this for GCC? Wouldn't this just result in more bug reports for GCC maintainers No. about a project that they have no control over? If you don't plan to integrate gpc with the rest of GCC, then I don't see any reason why gpc would have to live in the GCC subversion repository. Thanks for your great cooperation. Adriaan van Os
Re: GNU Pascal branch
Ed Smith-Rowland wrote: All, FWIW, I would like to add my support for creating a branch for gpc with the eventual goal of integrating Pascal into mainline. I would bootstrap and test this branch, report bugs and do my best to help with solutions although I'm new at this. I think both projects would benefit. I'll venture some predictions: GCC 1. Another language would test the middle and back ends more and expose more bugs. There would be the process, structure, and motivation to fix them because gpascal is integrated. 2. I know of one person from the gpc world who participates in gcc and understands the gcc-4+ internals. I'm sure more would follow. 3. It would be cool to have more languages! --enable-languages=c,c++,java,objc,obj- c++,fortran,treelang,ada,pascal, Mwahahahah!!! plus modula ! 4. There are multi-language Pascal-C, etc systems that GCC would be left out of without gpascal. GPC 1. The later versions of gcc are getting faster. Moving gpc off of gcc-3 and into gcc-4 would speed things up. GCC-3.4.6 is the end of the line for GCC-3. 2. By targeting integration rather than proximity, all the recent work in getting gpascal to work with gcc-4 would be less likely to bitrot. 3. GPC would get much wider exposure. It would probably eventually ship along with the rest of gcc in OS distributions including *ahem* MacOSX. 4. I've seen questions on the gpc mailing list about the availability of OpenMP for Pascal. I don't think OpenMP treats Pascal but gcc has OpenMP integrated into the C, C++, and Fortran frontends and has a common OMP runtime. If OMP was wanted as an extension or became part of OpenMP then your best bet is GCC. 5. I believe that more people would join the GPC maintenance effort. I get the sense that there are wounds from old battles. Based on the replies I believe that many of the complaints (perceived and/or real): poor response to bug reports, second class citizen feelings - would fall by the wayside if a branch with the goal of full integration were initiated. This would require that friendly dialog would ensue and that new people are eased into a different culture in a welcoming manner. This would require a change in workflow and project structure for gpascal. But I think it is worth it. I really hope that these issues and others can be resolved for the benefit of all. This is an excellent résumé of the situation. Thanks, Adriaan van Os
Re: GNU Pascal branch
Steven Bosscher wrote: Ed Smith-Rowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: All, FWIW, I would like to add my support for creating a branch for gpc with the eventual goal of integrating Pascal into mainline. While I agree with most of the the points you make, the issue is not whether GCC should allow a gpc-branch to be created or not. I think that question would be just be a formality, if it were clear that the maintainers of GNU Pascal want integration with GCC. The fact is, that the GNU Pascal crew did not want integration with gcc the last time this was discussed. GCC, the project, can not just suck in every front end out there if the maintainers of that front end do not want that. Apparently, the GNU Pascal crew did not want integration with every buggy back-end that sucks out there. Thanks for your great cooperation. Perhaps you should go look for a mirror and say this again. At least, I don't need to look in the mirror to see someone barking. Can we have a normal discussion please ? Try to become a mature human being. Adriaan van Os
