From: David S. Miller <davem@jenolan.rutgers.edu>
To: egcs@cygnus.com
Subject: egcs-ss-970814
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 23:30:44 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <199708162330.TAA04921@jenolan.rutgers.edu> (raw)
Bootstrapped successfully and passed make compare (except of course
for the zzz.o file) on sparc-linux-gnulibc1 both with and without the
Haifa scheduler enabled.
Any timeframe on a initial cut of the new test suite mechanism? I'd
like to start cranking.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Andi Kleen <kdp0101@hpmail.lrz-muenchen.de>
To: egcs@cygnus.com
Subject: Re: egcs-ss-970814
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 04:12:25 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <199708162330.TAA04921@jenolan.rutgers.edu> (raw)
Message-ID: <19970817041225.mhHlCzDWdOdee5b4OcAJdzLwwiX3U2BSFc4wIQ8ewF8@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 19:30:44 -0400
"David S. Miller" <davem@jenolan.rutgers.edu> writes:
> Bootstrapped successfully and passed make compare (except of course
> for the zzz.o file) on sparc-linux-gnulibc1 both with and without the
> Haifa scheduler enabled.
>
> Any timeframe on a initial cut of the new test suite mechanism? I'd
> like to start cranking.
I would prefer to have the test suite still in a separate tar file -
it makes working with a low-bandwidth networking connection easier.
Thanks,
-Andi
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Jeffrey A Law <law@hurl.cygnus.com>
To: egcs@cygnus.com
Subject: Re: egcs-ss-970814
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 14:23:57 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <199708162330.TAA04921@jenolan.rutgers.edu> (raw)
Message-ID: <19970817142357.0T6nJSahca1qLGaLa7Z_nSnPqQxnnUM6bWeDDSidmvQ@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: egcs-ss-970814
In message <199708162330.TAA04921@jenolan.rutgers.edu>you write:
>
> Bootstrapped successfully and passed make compare (except of course
> for the zzz.o file) on sparc-linux-gnulibc1 both with and without the
> Haifa scheduler enabled.
Great. Hopefully the zzz.o problem will be cleared up before the next
snapshot.
> Any timeframe on a initial cut of the new test suite mechanism? I'd
> like to start cranking.
Hmmm, good question. It'd be good to get it in asap so that it could be
used for testing before the Aug/Sept release -- even if it's just the basic
dejagnu stuff without the automatic nightly testing stuff.
And (of course) the testsuite brings up another packaging issue -- whether
or not to include it in the main tarball.
The more I think about it, the more I feel there should be a "full blown"
release -- with all the languages, testsuites, targets, etc and a "lite"
release which is just the C compiler, then separate tarballs released in
lockstep that one can extract to get g++, g77, objc, the testsuite, etc.
If we can get a handle on doing releases like that, then we can think
later about what to do with the config directory.
Jeff
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Jeffrey A Law <law@hurl.cygnus.com>
To: egcs@cygnus.com
Subject: Re: prototyping
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 14:30:54 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <199708162330.TAA04921@jenolan.rutgers.edu> (raw)
Message-ID: <19970817143054.RTMDx2o03EyyxGoxWjaCXiV5BcyqeLHqvMWlf3ISdTo@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: prototyping
In message <m0wzo16-0004ecC@ocean.lucon.org>you write:
> >
> >
> > > I don't think Kenner will install it.
> >
> > I started doing some prototyping a couple years ago and Kenner
> > rejected my patches, so I gave up.
>
> I will break my huge patch up into small pieces. But it
> will take a while. What kind of division is better, by file?
I think by file -- which is how the intial prototyping work went into
the compiler -- file by file.
Maybe a good first step is to get each file's static functions dealt with
first.
Then start getting all the missing prototypes for extern functions dealt
with working on one .h file at a time.
The last step would be to start fixing all the target config files.
> cpplib.c is not used in Linux. I also left out gcc.c and a few
> other files. I am afraid my current patch is already too big.
> After it is installed, I will take care of others.
One of the things we should be doing -- switching to cpplib across
the board instead of for just the fixing of header files.
Per, are there any technical reasons why we can't start this soon?
Jeff
next reply other threads:[~1997-08-16 23:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1997-08-16 23:30 David S. Miller [this message]
1997-08-17 4:12 ` egcs-ss-970814 Andi Kleen
1997-08-17 14:23 ` egcs-ss-970814 Jeffrey A Law
1997-08-17 14:30 ` prototyping Jeffrey A Law
1997-08-17 14:30 egcs-ss-970814 H.J. Lu
1997-08-17 18:01 970814 and libg++ Mumit Khan
1997-08-17 19:05 ` egcs-ss-970814 Jeffrey A Law
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=199708162330.TAA04921@jenolan.rutgers.edu \
--to=davem@jenolan.rutgers.edu \
--cc=egcs@cygnus.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).