Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I'm personally reluctant to codify it, because it's really hard to
codify good judgment. But if you say in your patch how you tested it,
the reviewers should be able to consider whether that is sufficient.
I agree.
I always claim that my most valuable contribution to
We generally require bootstraps for patches to native-capable targets.
This is quite time consuming for targets like rs6000 or ia64 where
the available machines in the compile farm are have low processing speed
and/or memory, and for rs6000 also suffer issues with mpc / gmp / mpfr
libraries
On 07/01/2010 02:27 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
When risks of the patch mostly involve type checking or things that
could be caught with a simple compilation, could we relax this
testing requirement to do a cross-build of all-gcc all-target-libgcc
with a recent fully bootstrapped compiler, with
Quoting Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org:
On 07/01/2010 02:27 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
When risks of the patch mostly involve type checking or things that
could be caught with a simple compilation, could we relax this
testing requirement to do a cross-build of all-gcc all-target-libgcc
with a
On 07/01/2010 02:57 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
Quoting Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org:
On 07/01/2010 02:27 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
When risks of the patch mostly involve type checking or things that
could be caught with a simple compilation, could we relax this
testing requirement to do a
Quoting Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org:
Sorry, I meant that it should not give any warning, not that -Werror is
in use.
Well, what we want for a bootstrap replacement is that it gives errors
for everything where a bootstrap gives errors.
On 07/01/2010 03:26 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
Quoting Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org:
Sorry, I meant that it should not give any warning, not that -Werror is
in use.
Well, what we want for a bootstrap replacement is that it gives errors
for everything where a bootstrap gives errors.
Quoting Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org:
On 07/01/2010 03:26 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
Well, what we want for a bootstrap replacement is that it gives errors
for everything where a bootstrap gives errors.
--enable-werror-always?
No, we don't want -Werror for files that are excluded from
On 07/01/2010 03:34 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
Quoting Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org:
On 07/01/2010 03:26 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
Well, what we want for a bootstrap replacement is that it gives
errors for everything where a bootstrap gives errors.
--enable-werror-always?
No, we don't
Quoting Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org:
--enable-werror-always is today what you're looking for, I think.
I just tried, and it seems to work for my i686-pc-linux-gnu X ia64-linux-gnu
build. Not only did it supply -Werror, make all-gcc already completed,
while the bootstrap on gcc60 has been
Joern Rennecke amyl...@spamcop.net writes:
So, back to the original question. Is this a suitable bootstrap substitute
for testing patches?
I think it can be. You have to use good judgment, of course. I know
you know this, but if the patch is going to change the generated code on
a specific
11 matches
Mail list logo
