From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30744 invoked by alias); 28 Mar 2003 11:40:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 30733 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2003 11:40:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Mar 2003 11:40:14 -0000 Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA28312; Fri, 28 Mar 03 06:44:06 EST Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:06:00 -0000 From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Message-Id: <10303281144.AA28312@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> To: guerby@acm.org Subject: Re: ACATS & GCC testsuite Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg01709.txt.bz2 What are the arguments behind "best" here? Are the ACT releases built in maintainer-mode? Same question for binary distributors like Linux vendors? The issue isn't how releases are built, but what's required to verify that a patch doesn't break anything. That's why I by far prefer to have the testing being done after install, and not in build like it is done for GCC via DejaGNU now. No, builds seem right. I don't want to have to install a compiler in order to test it.