Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GCC 4.5 Release Candidate Is Coming

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • GCC 4.5 Release Candidate Is Coming

    Phoronix: GCC 4.5 Release Candidate Is Coming

    GCC 4.5 was not in a good shape as of the middle of March with it still not being ready due to 16 outstanding P1 regressions, but over the past two weeks, developers have feverishly been fixing these bugs and the count is now down to zero. For P2 regressions, 17 of them have been fixed too over this time span, which brings the second-tier bugs down to a count of 81. There is also one new P3 regression bringing its count to three...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=ODExNA

  • #2
    Why do the release a software as stable knowing that it has bugs?

    So that distros start using it, and start sending fixes?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by KDesk View Post
      Why do the release a software as stable knowing that it has bugs?

      So that distros start using it, and start sending fixes?
      I guess I have a reason, but I'm not sure: Because they always did it that way!

      Imo this is mostly a non-issue, any compiler has known problems and often known before the release.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by KDesk View Post
        Why do the release a software as stable knowing that it has bugs?

        So that distros start using it, and start sending fixes?
        There is no such thing as bug-free software.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by KDesk View Post
          Why do the release a software as stable knowing that it has bugs?
          because otherwise nobody would ever release anything. There is no bug-free software, not when you're talking about software the size and age of gcc.

          edit: hi pvtcupcakes

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by pvtcupcakes View Post
            There is no such thing as bug-free software.
            But there is such a thing as software without known bugs. Of course it's not practical to always solve all confirmed bugs before a release. But it's theoretically possible to do bugfixes until the bug tracker is empty. I'm curious what would happen if all software projects would pick up a policy: no new features until the confirmed bug list is empty.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Remco View Post
              But there is such a thing as software without known bugs.
              only if the developers are totally ignorant, there are no testers/users, or there's some weird definition of "bug" that allows one to classify all bug reports as invalid.

              Show me one large project with an empty bug tracker before release.

              Originally posted by Remco View Post
              I'm curious what would happen if all software projects would pick up a policy: no new features until the confirmed bug list is empty.
              No new releases for the next 5 years. As a consequence, distributions start randomly shipping git versions. All hell breaks loose.
              Oh, and no Linux-user is allowed to buy new hardware, since new drivers = features.

              Comment


              • #8
                Maybe Remco is thinking of something like this:
                http://www.schneier.com/blog/archive...g_a_compu.html

                But it's a very very expensive/time consuming process, then there's also the question of how you define a "bug", errors in the math, and dealing with faulty hardware etc...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by rohcQaH View Post
                  Show me one large project with an empty bug tracker before release.
                  The latest KDE 3.5.x release has no known bugs.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Well KDE 3.5 can not mount usb storage >1TB.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Proving program correctness is a step further than I was thinking, but I do find that interesting, too. It's a theoretical impossibility to know if a Turing complete program will reach certain states, but you can rule out certain types of failures. Program correctness is more about finding bugs than about fixing them. Finding all bugs is theoretically impossible. But fixing all found bugs is a lot easier. (OK, maybe still too difficult for practical purposes.)

                      As for the practical side: there would be releases, but those would then be maintenance releases for the next five years.

                      There is no clear distinction between a bug and a feature request of course. A missing driver would have to fall to the side of bugs. Anything that makes computers absolutely unusable is a bug.

                      If only the Linux ecosystem would do this, we would start losing an audience. But if the entire software industry did it, we would probably be looking at a future where bugs are virtually nonexistent. I'm not suggesting that we could do this. But it's a nice dream.

                      Maybe something less extreme could be accomplished, such as watching the bug list and not allowing it to grow between releases. Because if you allow it to grow, then you know for a fact that certain known bugs will never be fixed.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Kano View Post
                        Well KDE 3.5 can not mount usb storage >1TB.
                        Is it supposed to? My radio also can't launch a NASA satalite. Should I return it to the store?

                        Anyway; a bug, as we all know, came from a bug that literaly block a transistor/switch that caused a program to not execute like it used to. Today that translates to broken functionality. In other words something doesn't do what it is mean to do.

                        Is KDE 3.5 supposed to mount usb storage > 1TB, or is it missing the functionality to do so?

                        Either way... no know bugs by the KDE community... Otherwise you should file one. Maybe somebody that hates KDE4 will fix it for you

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          bug-free software

                          No.
                          It is never possible to fix all bugs
                          Some bugs are design compromises, where you make one thing batter knowing it makes something else worse.
                          Some "bugs" come down to not having the expected behavior, where "expected behavior" may differ for various users.

                          And in real life, development doesn't happen without introducing new bugs and inconsistencies.

                          We do the best we can, and we live with the ones that can't be reasonably

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by d4ddi0 View Post
                            No.
                            It is never possible to fix all bugs
                            Some bugs are design compromises, where you make one thing batter knowing it makes something else worse.
                            Some "bugs" come down to not having the expected behavior, where "expected behavior" may differ for various users.
                            Those would be investigated and either fixed or closed as not a bug.

                            I do now see a problem where your confirmed bug list could be shrinking, but now you have an enormous backlog on the unconfirmed bugs.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Remco View Post
                              Maybe something less extreme could be accomplished, such as watching the bug list and not allowing it to grow between releases. Because if you allow it to grow, then you know for a fact that certain known bugs will never be fixed.
                              Even something sounding as simple as this is in a large software project impossible. That's why a smart dude invented MoSCoW.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X