Re: btest-gcc.sh patch ping and Re: Link tests after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES

[Geoff Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2883 bytes --]


On 03/12/2007, at 2:39 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Dec 2007, Geoff Keating wrote:
>> On Dec 3, 2007, at 6:40 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com>  
>> wrote:
>>> 2 - btest-gcc.sh isn't updated to cover fortran.
>>>  Patch at <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-09/ 
>>> msg01710.html>.  Ping!
>>
>> Rejected; I do not think this script needs to be configurable in  
>> this fashion.
>
> But *I* do.  As it doesn't affect the default functionality or
> the integrity of the result (everything still listed in
> build_log), and doesn't take away or add redundant
> functionality, I don't really understand your rejection.

Part of the integrity of the result is that the same things are tested  
in every run of the script on a particular platform.  The script was  
specifically intended to not be configurable in the manner you want,  
because that would allow for the possibility that a misconfigured  
tester might miss some tests that ought to be run.

>> If there's a log missing, and you think the underlying  
>> functionality is stable
>> and well supported by GCC contributors on all platforms where it is  
>> enabled,
>> propose a patch to add it.
>
> The fortran tests are stable where it works, or so it seems.
> Whether it works is port-specific (build issue on *-elf being
> covered in this thread), and the patch above was a way to add
> the functionality per-platform.  It would also allow e.g.
> tracking gas or ld results in a combined tree.

The patch does not accomplish this.  It instead adds the functionality  
*per-tester*.  That's different to per-platform.

> I just need a regtest-script I can point to, such that people can  
> see how I build and regtest and possibly repeat it.

I would not go look at the scripts if I was trying to reproduce the  
results of my tester.  I would instead look at the build log which  
shows the exact 'configure' and 'make' commands used, with no need to  
do shell variable substitution in my head.

>  Your btest-gcc.sh mostly fits, but not covering all gcc-related  
> tests that run by "make check" is really an issue.

The patch does not implement this, either, but it might be a good idea.

The reason the script doesn't cover all tests is because some parts of  
the testsuite were too unreliable to be used in an automated fashion.   
That was some time ago and it may be that today it should simply look  
at all the testsuite.  Or, not.  If you have some data that points  
either way it would be very helpful.

>  I guess I could solve that by adding a variant of that script in  
> contrib/ though I do prefer improving the existing one.


Why?

I can't imagine you're saving an enormous amount of time in  
maintenance.  Nor is this script more conveniently located than a  
script you maintain in your own tree.  You could put your script on a  
web server and point people at that.

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 2460 bytes --]