Adding g77 test cases to egcs

[Craig Burley <burley@gnu.org>]

> Craig> BTW, I've been assuming I should submit these to Jeff Law for
> Craig> actual installation via CVS, but, perhaps, Robert Lipe, you'd
> Craig> be willing to do this
>
>Well, there's the assumption that, once you have your network up,  
>you should switch to CVS and take over the Fortran related part of  
>committing changes ...

Yes, I look forward to that day.  I do have my LAN set up, but
I'm chicken about undertaking the whole new-ISP/PPP/cvs thing,
given how many other projects are still half-done or not-quite-
working (remember how long ago I was supposed to have a working
Alpha for g77 development? one's sitting next to me, taken apart,
awaiting more info on how to configure the SCSI card to see if
that'll fix problems ;-).

So, I'd like to "clear the decks" as much as possible before
upgrading my Internet access sufficiently to use CVS, have reliable
and speedy email/USENET access, and so on.  Since that process
might render my Pentium, or my own brain, somewhat dysfunctional
for a time, things I'd rather people *not* be waiting on from
me include:

  -  Submitting g77 test cases that I (and, in some cases, only I)
     have, along with the info I've developed on them

  -  Submitting gcc-2.7.x patches g77 has been using so they
     can be evaluated for inclusion into egcs and gcc

  -  Getting 0.5.22, and maybe 0.5.23 as well, out the door

  -  Some other stuff

So I want to take care of these first.

>>  Wouldn't it be a better use of resources if I or Toon
>>  did this, since we're likely familiar with the bugs, and
>>  have Robert's time & expertise devoted to something else
>>  (not that I particularly need work and am obviously
>>  grateful for it being done one way or another)?  Or is
>>  it actually better if someone else does it?
>
>I certainly think that's a better use of Robert's time.  However,  
>as I can't run dejagnu on m68k-next-nextstep3, I need to do some  
>hand-fixing of sources before I can compile them.

I picked on Robert Lipe only because he showed signs of actually
caring enough about g77 to review past bug reports and install
test cases into egcs, which also meant he has CVS access.  In other
words, the squeaky grease got the wheel.  ;-)  Seriously, anyone
who has those qualities is welcome to do my dirty work until I get
my own CVS access -- I already know how dedicated Dave Love, Toon
Moene, and Kate Hedstrom are to g77, so if y'all have CVS access and
are willing to take some time to submit test cases that I email to
you, great!  Originally I was going to email them to Jeff Law,
seeing as he's done such great work making egcs-with-g77 happen
and installs my patches so quickly (sometimes before I finish
them ;-), but if I can help reduce his load by finding one or two
other people to do the CVS stuff....

What I plan to do is email these test cases to <fortran@gnu.org>,
<egcs-bugs@cygnus.com>, and anyone else who wants to see them as
well -- just let me know.  (I assume Robert Lipe is on the egcs-bugs
email list.  I'm not, but probably should subscribe.  In fact, I
think I'll do that next.  Anything to bring my spam ratio back
below 50%.  :)

These submissions will include explicit commentary that the bug
reports are old ones that are now packaged, modified as appropriate,
for inclusion in a particular area of the g77 test suite, and a
request for one individual (Robert, Dave, Toon, Kate...whoever
volunteers, maybe I'll rotate test by test to spread the load) to
actually add it.

That way, even without CVS access, everyone gets to look over the
test and see if they see any obvious problems or if it rings any
bells in terms of past bug reports...and might help ring one or
two if future bug reports come along identifying similar problems.
Mainly, I'm hoping this approach reduces both duplication of
work (submissions) and submission of test cases about which I
already have info I haven't done a sufficient job of sharing to date.

If anyone has feedback on this approach, let me know.

>>>>>> "Craig" == Craig Burley <burley@gnu.org> writes:
>
> Craig> Better to include the entire original email, plus annotations,
>
>I'll defer to that.

But, what do other people do with submissions from outside --
can we just assume, barring explicit copyright notices to the
contrary, that turning the program and emailed info into a
GPL'ed (?) test case is okay?  Or should we ask permission (seems
like a good idea to me anyway)?  Are there guidelines to these
issues somewhere I can read?

> Craig> BTW, I've been assuming I should submit these to Jeff Law for
> Craig> actual installation via CVS, but, perhaps, Robert Lipe, you'd
> Craig> be willing to do this
>
>Wouldn't it be a better use of resources if I or Toon did this, since
>we're likely familiar with the bugs, and have Robert's time &
>expertise devoted to something else (not that I particularly need work
>and am obviously grateful for it being done one way or another)?  Or
>is it actually better if someone else does it?

I hope I've explained that above.  I do like the idea of more people
seeing the tests I submit, but if I had CVS access I'd just do the
work, so I definitely wasn't overlooking you or Toon (or Kate!),
just wasn't sure how your time and other resources fit in with things.

Whoever is willing to add test cases to egcs via CVS that I submit to
them for exactly that purpose, just let me know!  The more the merrier,
I'll just rotate appropriately until I get dizzy.

        tq vm, (burley)