[llvm-dev] Bug-closing protocol
David Blaikie via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Jun 19 07:45:04 PDT 2018
Thanks for chiming in - certainly if you get bugs closed that don't reflect
when the fix was committed (by revision) that's sub-optimal as well. If
someone contributed the fix and are closing the bug because of that
contribution, the revision should be mentioned in the bug - if you see
cases of that not happening, do please/feel free to reply asking which
revision fixed it.
Usually when a bug is closed as fixed without a revision it's because the
bug wasn't deliberately fixed based on that bug report but perhaps fixed by
someone independently stumbling across the same issue - and then no one
noticing that it correlated with the bug report for some time. So it's hard
to find out which revision. Even in that case, the bug closing should
mention which revision the bug was verified to be not present in - so you
can at least track that revision to know which release it ends up in &
should have the fix (though earlier revisions/releases may also have the
fix in them).
Thanks, as always, for using Clang & taking the time to file bugs! I know
it can be a bit disheartening to file bugs & get no response. If there are
particular bugs that continue to plague you, it may be worthwhile to start
a thread on llvm-dev about them - things like crashes on valid code with
clear/narrow reproducers that affect real users (such as yourself) should
get relatively positive responses (as they're easily actionable/clearly
motivated). Other things can get a bit more vague & as always, a lot of it
comes down to the priorities/availability of the contributors as to whether
they have the time, context, etc, to work on the bug fix - unfortunately.
(& though it sounds trite, I mean this positively: if you'd like to try
your hand at contributing fixes, we hope to be an open & encouraging
community to facilitate that :))
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:33 PM JVApen via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
> First of all, I'm sorry to create a separate thread on the mailing list, I
> have disabled all mails from it.
> I just read the thread about the bug closing protocol thanks to
> LLVMWeekly. (
> I've noticed a lot of reactions from people involved with the solving part
> of the bugs. So I'm putting out the loggers point of view. (Or at least
> I'm totally in favor of getting relevant information when a bug gets
> closed. Over the last couple of years, I've logged several bugs, of which a
> couple of clang-cl compatibility bugs where put to invalid.
> Having a good explanation on why this is closed helped me a lot in
> manually fixing several thousand of occurrences of that pattern. Both
> mentally to not give up, as by understanding the problem.
> Please keep doing so!
> However, from my point of view, this is the tip of an iceberg. Out of
> about 50 bugs I've logged on a variety of modules, only half reached an end
> state. (Either fixed or invalid/won't fix).
> My problem also lies in that other half, those bugs that have been open
> for more than 2 weeks (upto 5 years). Cause if you don't get a reaction
> within those 2 weeks, the chances of getting a reaction drop a lot. (Or if
> reactions suddenly stop)
> When a bug goes into such a state, you are lost as a bug logger. It took
> me a couple of years getting our companies code compiling with clang-cl
> (linking is far future), working around obscure bugs of which I still don't
> know if you (as community/maintainer) agree if it is a bug.
> To make matters worse, every time a component gets upgraded (internal
> library, extrernal library or even the tool-chain, including clang), there
> is a high probability of firefighting issues. Only when that fails, I spent
> time logging a bug (as creduce doesn't work on my system).
> In the best case scenario, I get an event like this weekend that states:
> This means: I'm certain I'll have a fix in the future. Unfortunately, it
> is only available in the next official release, which will happen in
> September. And with a bit of luck, you can find back what the actual
> revision is, to see the diff. So for now, the code is ifdef-ed out for
> clang as it won't link anyhow.
> In conclusion: I really respect the work you do, this puts the standard on
> a high level. Taking the time to inform the bug logger is a must have.
> However, it is not the only place were we as bug loggers are lacking
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev