[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: The 98% and N<=2 criteria (was: Vancouver meeting - clarifications)

On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:15:11PM +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > A QA measure for kernel/toolchain issues, sure. Many compiler bugs are
> > identified by compiling 10G worth of software for an architecture;
> > perhaps we should have a better way of tracking these, but it surely is
> > a class of problems that /cannot/ be identified by just building on the
> > big N architectures.
> > 
> Indeed. Some of the issues I think of right now :
> - wrong assumptions on sizeof base types 
> - unaligned accesses
> - dependency on stack growth direction

Unless you mean stuff like this happening in the compiler, I don't think
we're talking about the same thing.

What I mean are the cases where the compiler barfs "Internal Compiler
Error in foo, please submit a full bug report, (...)" and exits, such as

     smog  |   bricks
 AIR  --  mud  -- FIRE
soda water |   tequila
 -- with thanks to fortune

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: