On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 07/17/2017 02:25 PM, Yuri Gribov wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 07/17/2017 02:14 AM, Yuri Gribov wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Mikhail, >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 6:39 PM, Mikhail Maltsev <malts...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi. Yes, bug maintenance is appreciated. See this message and replies >>>>> to it: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2016-04/msg00258.html . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Replies in your link suggest to leave a final comment in bugs with >>>> explanatory suggestion to close them so that maintainers who read >>>> gcc-bugs list hopefully notice them and act appropriately. >>>> Unfortunately I found this to _not_ work in practice. Below you can >>>> see a list of bugs I've investigated (and often bisected) in the past >>>> weeks - none of them were closed by maintainers (or at least >>>> commented). >>>> >>>> So I'm afraid we have to conclude that there's no working process to >>>> close stale bugs in place (which may be one of the reasons of bugcount >>>> growth). >>> >>> >>> >>> The informal process that some (most?) of us have been following >>> is to close them with a comment explaining our rationale. >>> It's good to fill in the Known to fail/Known to work versions if they >>> can be determined. Mentioning the commit that fixed the bug as >>> you did for the bugs below is ideal. Adding a test case if one >>> doesn't exist in the test suite is also very useful, though quite >>> a bit more work. In my experience, if a bug is closed that should >>> stay open, someone usually notices pretty quickly and reopens it, >>> so I wouldn't be too worried about doing something wrong. >> >> >> Martin, >> >> Firstly, thanks for detailed explanation. >> >> What to do about bugs originating in upstream packages? I noticed >> they sometimes get closed with "RESOLVED MOVED" resolution >> (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58841) but often this >> does not happen and they just hang in tracker forever for no good >> reason. >> >> Actually what I tried to emphasize is that it's impossible for a >> casual commiter (who does not have maintainer access to Bugzilla i.e. >> rights to close bugs) to contribute to project by cleaning stale bugs, >> because requests to close them are mostly ignored (because >> maintainers, obviously, have much more interesting work to do). > > > I take your point. I didn't realize closing bugs was restricted. > Given the work you've done on the bugs below (and elsewhere) you > should be able to close them. If you aren't and would like to be > able to, please request it by emailing overse...@gcc.gnu.org ((at > least I think that's the right way to go about it), or follow up > here and I'm sure someone with the right karma will make it happen.
Jonathan also mentioned something not immediately obvious in IRC: logging into BZ with gcc.gnu.org account provides elevated privileges. So if you have write access, you should get extra BZ rights for free. >>> The process for managing bugs is in more detail described here: >>> >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/management.html >>> >>> If you think it should be clarified in some way please feel free >>> to send in a patch. >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> >>>> >>>> * Bug 41992 - ICE on invalid dereferencing of void * >>>> (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2017-07/msg00860.html) >>>> * Bug 63245 - renderMemorySnippet shouldn't show more bytes than the >>>> underlying type >>>> (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2017-07/msg00645.html) >>>> * Bug 61693 - [asan] is not intercepting aligned_alloc >>>> (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2017-07/msg00643.html) >>>> * Bug 61771 - Test failures in ASan testsuite on ARM Linux due to FP >>>> format mismatch between libasan and GCC >>>> (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2017-07/msg00646.html) >>>> * Bug 78028 - ASAN doesn't find memory leak >>>> (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2017-07/msg00653.html) >>>> * Bug 55316 - gcc/libsanitizer/asan/asan_linux.cc:70:3: error: #error >>>> "Unsupported arch" >>>> (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2017-07/msg00636.html) >>>> * Bug 78654 - ubsan can lead to excessive stack usage >>>> (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2017-07/msg00640.html) >>>> * Bug 60892 - GCC (libsanitizer) fails to build with Linux 2.6.21 >>>> headers (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2017-07/msg00649.html) >>>> * Bug 61995 - gcc 4.9.1 fails to compile with error in libsanitizer >>>> (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2017-07/msg00648.html) >>>> * Bug 80027 - ASAN breaks DT_RPATH $ORIGIN in dlopen() >>>> (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2017-07/msg00787.html) >>>> * Bug 54123 - inline functions not optimized as well as static inline >>>> (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2017-07/msg01321.html) >>>> >>>> -Y >>>> >>> >