On 21/11/16 08:42, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On 17 November 2016 at 11:45, Kyrill Tkachov
> <kyrylo.tkac...@foss.arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 17/11/16 10:31, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Kyrill,
>>>
>>> On 17/11/16 10:11, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Andre,
>>>>
>>>> On 09/11/16 10:00, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Tested the series by bootstrapping arm-none-linux-gnuabihf and found no
>>>>> regressions, also did a normal build for arm-none-eabi and ran the
>>>>> acle.exp tests for a Cortex-M3.
>>>>
>>>> Can you please also do a full testsuite run on arm-none-linux-gnueabihf.
>>>> Patches have to be tested by the whole testsuite.
>>>
>>> That's what I have done and meant to say with "Tested the series by
>>> bootstrapping arm-none-linux-gnuabihf and found no regressions". I
>>> compared gcc/g++/libstdc++ tests on a bootstrap with and without the
>>> patches.
>>
>>
>> Ah ok, great.
>>
>>>
>>> I'm happy to rerun the tests after a rebase when the patches get approved.
>>
> FWIW, I ran a validation with the 6 patches applied, and saw no regression.
> Given the large number of new tests, I didn't check the full details.
>
> If you want to check that each configuration has the PASSes you expect,
> you can have a look at:
> http://people.linaro.org/~christophe.lyon/cross-validation/gcc-test-patches/242581-acle/report-build-info.html
>
> Thanks,
>
> Christophe
>
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kyrill
>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Andre
>>
>>
Ping. (For the patch series).
