From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7185 invoked by alias); 26 Jan 2012 20:18:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 7175 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Jan 2012 20:18:11 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from tirion.supremecenter202.com (HELO tirion.supremecenter202.com) (209.25.195.243) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:17:58 +0000 Received: from [77.29.115.13] (port=42867 helo=[192.168.178.36]) by tirion.supremecenter202.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RqVlb-0002nR-GH; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:17:55 +0000 Message-ID: <4F21B4F0.6040407@siva.com.mk> Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:18:00 -0000 From: Ilija Kocho User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111220 Thunderbird/9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Schuilenburg CC: eCos developers Subject: Re: Gnutools: consideration for upgrade to GCC 4.6 References: <4F106345.4080902@siva.com.mk> <4F11574D.9070002@dallaway.org.uk> <4F11AC54.7000902@siva.com.mk> <4F1CB41C.90900@jifvik.org> <4F1DA9A0.5070702@siva.com.mk> <4F1FF5AD.4010901@ecoscentric.com> <4F206D2E.7040608@siva.com.mk> <4F2156B0.7080705@ecoscentric.com> In-Reply-To: <4F2156B0.7080705@ecoscentric.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact ecos-devel-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-devel-owner@ecos.sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-01/txt/msg00047.txt.bz2 Hi Alex On 26.01.2012 14:35, Alex Schuilenburg wrote: > Hi Ilija > > On 2012-01-25 20:59, Ilija Kocho wrote: >> Hi Alex >> >> I wish to thank eCosCentric for supporting eCos GCC 4.6 release. It >> will both assure quality of this release and strengthen the image of >> eCos community toolchain. > NP - it is a community effort after all :-) > > >> In order to best utilize 2 lab. weeks of testing we should have well >> prepared binaries. In my view, it would be the best to carry out the >> eCosCentric lab. test as final release verification step after some >> field testing. In a course of field testing we shall also prepare eCos >> itself, (eliminate warnings, etc.). > We have the opposite view - our test farm finds errors which normal user > and field testing does not catch. I think the earlier you get the > toolchain into the test farm the better because you will at least > minimise the user and field regression testing needed when you fix > issues thrown up by the farm. > > We are happy to throw as many toolchain candidates as needed into the > test farm, with the only restriction being the bandwidth each board runs > the tests, so don't feel you have to hold back and use the farm for > final verification. Our test farm has thrown up far more eCos bugs and > toolchain issues than the rest of the community has to date. Thank you for clarification. This gives a completely new perspective. We'll take care "as many" to be some reasonable figure. Cheers Ilija