From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25708 invoked by alias); 5 May 2014 20:36:26 -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 25698 invoked by uid 89); 5 May 2014 20:36:25 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-wi0-f179.google.com Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com (HELO mail-wi0-f179.google.com) (209.85.212.179) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 05 May 2014 20:36:24 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f179.google.com with SMTP id bs8so6234767wib.0 for ; Mon, 05 May 2014 13:36:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.194.57.38 with SMTP id f6mr3718922wjq.59.1399322181816; Mon, 05 May 2014 13:36:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2.26.169.52]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id rx9sm18593859wjb.20.2014.05.05.13.36.20 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 05 May 2014 13:36:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard Sandiford To: Jakub Jelinek Mail-Followup-To: Jakub Jelinek ,gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, rdsandiford@googlemail.com Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Ping: RFA: speeding up dg-extract-results.sh References: <878utfe5g0.fsf@talisman.default> <878uqjtixc.fsf@talisman.default> <20140505191655.GP1817@tucnak.redhat.com> Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 20:36:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20140505191655.GP1817@tucnak.redhat.com> (Jakub Jelinek's message of "Mon, 5 May 2014 21:16:55 +0200") Message-ID: <87k3a0x8sh.fsf@talisman.default> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg00256.txt.bz2 Jakub Jelinek writes: > On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 08:34:07AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> Ping for this old patch. I didn't ping it before because I can imagine >> it wasn't a good idea at that stage in 4.8. But I've been using it locally >> since and it really does make a big difference when testing lots of >> multilibs. > > Have you tested that it creates bitwise identical output given the same > input from the old script on a couple of regtests (e.g. your 5 hour mips > case with many multilibs, and say common x86_64 one)? Not bitwise, because there were some deliberate differences (see the list in the quoted email). But I did a diff and the only differences were the expected ones. Thanks, Richard