From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 36557 invoked by alias); 9 Jun 2016 13:10:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 35778 invoked by uid 89); 9 Jun 2016 13:10:44 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=kingdom, personal X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 09 Jun 2016 13:10:43 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BAC7C00B8F9; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 13:10:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-116-51.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.51]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u59DAedW019534 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 9 Jun 2016 09:10:41 -0400 Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id u59DAdXO016746; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 15:10:39 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id u59DAcNQ016745; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 15:10:38 +0200 Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 13:10:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: David Edelsohn Cc: Bernd Schmidt , David Malcolm , GCC Patches Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add selftest for pretty-print.c (v2) Message-ID: <20160609131038.GQ7387@tucnak.redhat.com> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <983cf868-9e9f-71d4-3bae-09c5d0a12cbe@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-06/txt/msg00675.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 09:02:27AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote: > On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > > On 06/09/2016 02:21 PM, David Edelsohn wrote: > > > >> This is a completely unacceptable way to introduce these self-tests. > >> Please stop adding self-tests that only are tested on x86 Linux and > >> cause bootstrap failures. > > > > > > We have no requirement to test patches on more than one target. I think your > > request is unreasonable. > > Bernd, > > This is a completely inappropriate response. GCC must maintain a > stable, working development base on which developers can work. GCC > specifically supports multiple architectures and targets. > > GCC is not your personal kingdom and playground. For patches that the submitter can easily expect problems on some architectures, testing there is desirable, but we certainly don't and should not require every single generic code change to be expected on all supported targets, not even on primary targets. That just doesn't scale, various people submit multiple changes a day and having to wait days or weeks before testing is over is unacceptable. You've reported a problem, David is going to look at it and fix. I don't see why it would be unacceptable to add further self-tests, as long as there is nothing in them where one should expect issues on targets other than the tested one. Jakub