Re: [Valgrind-developers] Valgrind 3.16 release schedule

[Mark W. <ma...@kl...>]

Hi Julian,

On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 09:40:03AM +0100, Julian Seward wrote:
> In the Developer Toolroom at FOSDEM20 last Sunday, there was a bit of
> discussion regarding the release date for 3.16.0.  The following was agreed:
> 
> * freeze for large changes on Monday 2 March 2020.
> 
> * final release on Monday 16 March 2020.
> 
> This gives us just under four weeks to land any large changes for 3.16,
> followed by a two week stabilisation period before the release.

This would be nice for the Fedora 32 schedule.
2020-03-17 is the current beta target (1 day after the 3.16.0 release).

> My list of changes still to do for 3.16 are:
> 
> * make the new &&-idiom-recognition stuff work also on s390 and MIPS.  This
>   was discussed with both the s390 and MIPS folks on Sunday.  If it is not
>   fixable in the timescale, it's not a disaster since that functionality can
>   remain disabled on those targets, as it is now.  But if possible it would be
>   nice to have it fixed.
> 
> * 64-bit time-related syscalls on 32-bit Linux targets are now failing (esp
>   for Fedora Rawhide).  Mark and/or me can look at this; other volunteers
>   welcome.

This is https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=416753 It is 20 new
time64 syscall variants. The syscall numbers are the same on all
arches.

> * Continue testing with gcc 10 (and maybe glibc-the-latest?); make sure it
>   works.

I have been building valgrind 3.15.0 with backports against Fedora
rawhide, which contains both gcc10 pre-release and glibc 3.21. Things
now look reasonable on most architectures Fedora supports except for
x86 and armhf because they are 32bit arches where the new glibc
defaults to the new time syscalls.
See valgrind f32 build.logs from:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=98
They contain make regtest results plus .diff files.

> * [me] I'd like to land 253657 (improvements to PDB reading) if possible.
> 
> * I would like to remove the exp-sgcheck tool.  It hasn't been usable for
>   years (if ever); it doesn't work at all on non-x86/amd64 targets, and is
>   generally pointless to keep around.  Are there any objections to removing
>   it?

Yes, please!

> * I'll make another pass through the open bugs within the next week, but I'm
>   not aware of any critical bugs right now.

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=417075
pwritev(vector[...]) suppression ignored
Is somewhat annoying, but I am not sure how to proceed.

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=416760 ppc64le
Assertion 'VG_IS_16_ALIGNED(sizeof(struct rt_sigframe))' failed
Is a regression caused by the fix for
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=405201
Incorrect size of struct vki_siginfo on 64-bit Linux architectures

> If this schedule is a problem for anyone, please let us know immediately.
> Also, of course, if there are other changes that should go in 3.16, speak up
> now.

Looks doable to me.

Thanks,

Mark