On Apr 6, 2010, at 1:04 PM, David Greene wrote:> On Tuesday 06 April 2010 14:52:47 Dustin Laurence wrote: >> On 04/06/2010 11:45 AM, Tanya Lattner wrote: >>> While lack of linux testing of the testsuite is a problem, this is >>> not why the release is slipping. We need more people to fix bugs. It >>> can't be the same people fixing the bugs for every release. >>> >>> We need more people in the community to help and I can't see any way >>> of sugar coating this message. > > AFAICT, the only bugs left are Clang bugs and a Darwin llvm-gfortran bug. > The Linux bugs have all been triaged and either fixed, have what should > be a simple resolution or deemed not release-blocking: > > Bug 6616 - gcc 4.2 problem, verified to work with 4.3 and 4.4Alright. Its tricky when you have multiple versions of gcc. There is no good solution to this, but thats fine.> Bug 6660 - clang regressionsThese are only on Linux. So we still have some Linux regressions right now, but hopefully they are easy to fix.> Bug 6696 - Just revert the offending patchJim has sent me a patch. Getting code owner approval.> Bug 6778 - Darwin bugYes. Still in flux. -Tanya
On Tuesday 06 April 2010 17:35:00 Tanya Lattner wrote:> >>> We need more people in the community to help and I can't see any way > >>> of sugar coating this message. > > > > AFAICT, the only bugs left are Clang bugs and a Darwin llvm-gfortran bug. > > The Linux bugs have all been triaged and either fixed, have what should > > be a simple resolution or deemed not release-blocking:> > Bug 6660 - clang regressions > > These are only on Linux. So we still have some Linux regressions right now, > but hopefully they are easy to fix.Yes, but this isn't the community to do it. My point is that it's difficult for "the community" to help when there aren't any actual bugs for that community to fix. To say that "It can't be the same people fixing the bugs for every release" discounts a lot of good, hard work put in by a lot of people. There wasn't a lot for "the community" to do before late last week except run tests, which in fact a number of people did. Did I miss an announcement of PR6586 somewhere? The first I knew about it was mid last week. Maybe I missed the posting on this mailing list about it. It's been open for almost a month. Without knowing about that bug, it's pretty tough for people to do anything about it. -Dave
On Tuesday 06 April 2010 18:18:07 David Greene wrote:> On Tuesday 06 April 2010 17:35:00 Tanya Lattner wrote: > > >>> We need more people in the community to help and I can't see any way > > >>> of sugar coating this message. > > > > > > AFAICT, the only bugs left are Clang bugs and a Darwin llvm-gfortran > > > bug.BTW, I will happily work on the Darwin bug as soon as Apple lets me install Mac OS X on a virtual machine! :) -Dave
Hi, David> To say that "It can't be the same people fixing the bugs for every release" > discounts a lot of good, hard work put in by a lot of people. There wasn't a > lot for "the community" to do before late last week except run tests, which in > fact a number of people did.Why? Prerelease 1 tarballs are available for at least 3 weeks. PR6623 was entered into bugzilla at March, 20, etc., etc., etc.> Did I miss an announcement of PR6586 somewhere? The first I knew about it was > mid last week. Maybe I missed the posting on this mailing list about it. > It's been open for almost a month. Without knowing about that bug, it's > pretty tough for people to do anything about it.It's pretty strange to hear about this from you. I hoped everyone who worked with llvm for some non-trivial period of time knows about "master" bug habits in the LLVM bugzilla. Such bugs were created for 2.5 and 2.6 releases, so, one should definitely expect to see another one for 2.7. Also, I should note that master bug in question was *explicitly* mentioned in Tanya's 2.7 prerelease 1 e-mail sent on March, 17. Have you seen this e-mail? -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University