(link to) gcc-testsuite results for cygming-special 3.3.1

(link to) gcc-testsuite results for cygming-special 3.3.1

[Tim Prince]

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2003-09/msg00497.html
-- 
Tim Prince

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: (link to) gcc-testsuite results for cygming-special 3.3.1

[Christopher Faylor]

On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 05:48:11PM -0700, Tim Prince wrote:
>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2003-09/msg00497.html

Are you saying that you'd like to be the package maintainer for this?
That would be great!
--
Please use the resources at cygwin.com rather than sending personal email.
Special for spam email harvesters: send email to aaaspam@sourceware.org
and be permanently blocked from mailing lists at sources.redhat.com

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: (link to) gcc-testsuite results for cygming-special 3.3.1

[Charles Wilson]

Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 05:48:11PM -0700, Tim Prince wrote:
> 
>>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2003-09/msg00497.html
> 
> 
> Are you saying that you'd like to be the package maintainer for this?
> That would be great!

Snarkiness aside, Oh Magnate of Meanness, but I believe Tim was giving 
you precisely what you asked for.

You said the packages (gcc-3.3.1-1 and gcc-mingw-20030911-1) were 
available for testing.  Tim ran the testsuite, today, 13 Sep 2003.  And 
then reported the results.  He also reported them to the gcc-testresults 
mailing list -- but only sent "us" a link to that earlier report.

Some more words from Tim would've been nice -- and keeping the response 
in your original thread instead of starting a new one wouldn't've hurt, 
either.

But I really really hope you haven't invented a new rule where:

"please test"
"okay, here's my results"
"great, thanks for volunteering to take over maint of the package"

'cause that'd really cut down on the number of people who bother to read 
'Avail for test' messages...

--
Chuck



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: (link to) gcc-testsuite results for cygming-special 3.3.1

[Christopher Faylor]

On Sun, Sep 14, 2003 at 01:09:08AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>>On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 05:48:11PM -0700, Tim Prince wrote:
>>
>>>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2003-09/msg00497.html
>>
>>
>>Are you saying that you'd like to be the package maintainer for this?
>>That would be great!
>
>Snarkiness aside, Oh Magnate of Meanness, but I believe Tim was giving 
>you precisely what you asked for.

Oh, get bent, Chuck.

>You said the packages (gcc-3.3.1-1 and gcc-mingw-20030911-1) were 
>available for testing.  Tim ran the testsuite, today, 13 Sep 2003.  And 
>then reported the results.  He also reported them to the gcc-testresults 
>mailing list -- but only sent "us" a link to that earlier report.
>
>Some more words from Tim would've been nice -- and keeping the response 
>in your original thread instead of starting a new one wouldn't've hurt, 
>either.
>
>But I really really hope you haven't invented a new rule where:
>
>"please test"
>"okay, here's my results"
>"great, thanks for volunteering to take over maint of the package"
>
>'cause that'd really cut down on the number of people who bother to read 
>'Avail for test' messages...

Lets be clear here: I do run tests on gcc before releasing.  I'm not
particularly interested in having someone else run test releases,
especially ones with no context.  Do the tests indicate a regression
from the last release?  Are they better or are they worse?

Test results without history, unless they show massive failures, are
pretty much worthless.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: (link to) gcc-testsuite results for cygming-special 3.3.1

[Christopher Faylor]

On Sun, Sep 14, 2003 at 11:33:47AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Sun, Sep 14, 2003 at 01:09:08AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>>[snip]

Just another data point: from the URL posted, this wasn't a test of the
gcc that I released.  This was a gcc built from a CVS branch (although
the subject and the body of the message do seem to be at odds, it seems
clear that this isn't my release).  Since it was built from CVS, it is
not inconceivable that someone who mastered that intricate feat would
want to take over maintenance.
--
Please use the resources at cygwin.com rather than sending personal email.
Special for spam email harvesters: send email to aaaspam@sourceware.org
and be permanently blocked from mailing lists at sources.redhat.com

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: (link to) gcc-testsuite results for cygming-special 3.3.1

[Danny Smith]

> From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-rcm at cygwin dot com> 
> To: cygwin at cygwin dot com 
> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 11:33:47 -0400 
> On Sun, Sep 14, 2003 at 01:09:08AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
> >Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 05:48:11PM -0700, Tim Prince wrote:
> >>
> >>>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2003-09/msg00497.html

  <snip> 

> Lets be clear here: I do run tests on gcc before releasing.  I'm not
> particularly interested in having someone else run test releases,
> especially ones with no context.  Do the tests indicate a regression
> from the last release?  Are they better or are they worse?
> 
> Test results without history, unless they show massive failures, are
> pretty much worthless.
> 

The published test results are also a bit misleading.  The testsuite used is from
 
CVS: -rgcc-ss-3_3-20030908

Many of the tests that failed are new tests -- ie., they (and the bugfixes they test)
do not exist in the gcc-3_3_1-release branch.  My results on cygwin build
(same source as the gcc-3.3.1 (cygming-special) with the contemporary testsuite) had
far fewer failures.  Also going through the failures, several are due to 'bugs' in the
testsuite itself  (wrong options for cygwin or problems with degagnu).

As Chris points out, without some context, the testsuite results are not very useful, but 
it is good to know that someone is testing with the GCC testsuite too. 

Danny

http://search.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Search
- Looking for more? Try the new Yahoo! Search

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/