On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 04:10:05PM +0200, [email protected] wrote: > On Sep 19, 2011, at 4:04 PM, Neil Puttock wrote: > > > On 19 September 2011 13:05, [email protected] <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> Perhaps create two new make options: > >> > >> make unsafe-test-baseline > >> > >> and > >> > >> make unsafe-check > >> > >> These would not have the fail-if-unoptimized check.
Why not do it the other way around? Leave the default alone, but add a separate target for -requires-unoptimized. > Graham - how difficult would it be to change LilyPond's build in > GUB such that it used different commands to run its regtests? 1-5 hours. If you haven't run "make bootstrap" yet, then add another 1-5 hours to that total, to accommodate fixing bugs in GUB to allow it to complete that step on your computer. These estimates do not include the 5-20 hours that your computer will spend compiling software in the background. Do not even think about attempting this inside virtualbox. > Also, it may be worth it to consider scrapping optimized binary > altogether - it'd be good to test how much overhead the > unoptimized version introduces with respect to the optimized > version. I don't think we want to be shipping unoptimized binaries. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
