On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 14:20:41 -0700 Daniel Campbell <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 08/18/2016 06:21 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 08:13:14 -0400 > > Rich Freeman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> If you just check your packages occassionally to make sure they > >> build with gold it completely achieves the goal, and it will > >> actually result in fewer bugs using the non-gold linker as well. > > > > > > That's what a tinderbox is for. The only QA problem I see here is > > that QA doesn't automate that kind of checks anymore since Diego > > left. Maybe QA should ask Toralf to run a ld.gold tinderbox and > > avoid asking people to randomly test random packages ? > > > I dunno, if testing packages that one maintains is as simple as > reconfiguring a package, testing, and switching back then I don't > think it's unreasonable to ask us to test our own packages. We're > supposed to do that already, and for packages whose dependencies > aren't 100% hashed out, it can help us figure out what the real deps > are. test against... all linkers, all compilers, all libcs, all kernels, all userlannds, all useflags, ... ? :) by all means, please do it, but there are things machines are better at, like ensuring all packages have been tested against gold linker and every failure has been reported
