On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Matthias Klose d...@ubuntu.com wrote:
could somebody please shed some light on how this is done? It's nice that
everybody has this kind of testing, but the only bit in the gcc sources itself
seems to be a bit bit-rot and incomplete (contrib/test_installed).
Am 04.02.2014 03:14, schrieb Mike Stump:
On Feb 3, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2014, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Ian Lance Taylor
On 02/05/14 15:10, Matthias Klose wrote:
Am 04.02.2014 03:14, schrieb Mike Stump:
On Feb 3, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2014, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014
On Wed, 5 Feb 2014, Jeff Law wrote:
I suspect most folks have a site.exp they drop somewhere and explicitly call
runtest --tool gcc
* Create site.exp (based on what GCC's makefiles do for build-tree
testing). Note that in some cases you may need different contents for
different
Greetings,
We test GCC without access to the build tree (we only have convenient access to
install and source trees).
Building libgomp.c/affinity-1.c and libgomp.c++/affinity-1.C fails in
such testing, because of '#include config.h' which is nowhere to be
found.
Is that a bug?
Should I open a
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Paul Pluzhnikov ppluzhni...@google.com wrote:
We test GCC without access to the build tree (we only have convenient access
to
install and source trees).
Building libgomp.c/affinity-1.c and libgomp.c++/affinity-1.C fails in
such testing, because of '#include
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
If the presence of the build
tree makes writing some tests significantly simpler, I think that is
OK.
I would like to discourage that. Testing an already installed GCC for
which no build tree exists is a very useful
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 11:11:31AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Paul Pluzhnikov ppluzhni...@google.com
wrote:
We test GCC without access to the build tree (we only have convenient
access to
install and source trees).
Building
On 02/03/14 12:15, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 11:11:31AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Paul Pluzhnikov ppluzhni...@google.com wrote:
We test GCC without access to the build tree (we only have convenient access to
install and source trees).
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
If the presence of the build
tree makes writing some tests significantly simpler, I think that is
OK.
I would like to discourage that. Testing
On Mon, 3 Feb 2014, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
If the presence of the build
tree makes writing some tests significantly simpler, I think that is
On Feb 3, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2014, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
If the presence of the build
12 matches
Mail list logo
