From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18347 invoked by alias); 15 Apr 2002 18:04:24 -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 18322 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2002 18:04:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rwcrmhc54.attbi.com) (216.148.227.87) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Apr 2002 18:04:23 -0000 Received: from ocean.lucon.org ([12.234.143.38]) by rwcrmhc54.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020415180423.DFHT15826.rwcrmhc54.attbi.com@ocean.lucon.org>; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:04:23 +0000 Received: by ocean.lucon.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CD379125C2; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 11:04:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 11:19:00 -0000 From: "H . J . Lu" To: Geoff Keating Cc: jason@redhat.com, mark@codesourcery.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: GCC 3.1 Release Message-ID: <20020415110422.A22722@lucon.org> References: <46690000.1018660657@gandalf.codesourcery.com> <87662vicoi.fsf@creche.redhat.com> <200204151750.g3FHoqE12780@desire.geoffk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200204151750.g3FHoqE12780@desire.geoffk.org>; from geoffk@geoffk.org on Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 10:50:52AM -0700 X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00614.txt.bz2 On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 10:50:52AM -0700, Geoff Keating wrote: > > Cc: Mark Mitchell , gcc@gcc.gnu.org > > From: Jason Merrill > > Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 14:05:55 +0100 > > User-Agent: Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) Emacs/21.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) > > > > >>>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey writes: > > > > > What I'd like to see in the future is for people to set up automated > > > regression testers, say like Geoff's, that test these platforms. Then > > > we simply won't introduce problems in the first place. > > > > > In fact what I'd really like to see is a requirement for such a > > > regression tester for every platform that is considered release > > > critical. (I'm sure the logistics of this are difficult.) > > > > Absolutely. Geoff, how hard would it be for someone on the net to set up a > > slave tester to improve coverage? I'd like to keep the bookkeeping > > centralized, but the actual testing work can and should be distributed. > > Once sufficiently fast hardware is available, setting up a slave > tester should be very easy. I think it should go like this: > > 1. Set up a tester with some reasonably reproducible software > configuration (so that others can reproduce bugs). For example, > the current tester is configured as "Red Hat Linux 7 from CD plus > all updates so far". > > 2. Make GCC mainline bootstrap on this machine, preferably using the > scripts in gcc/contrib/regression. Check that the bootstrap & test > takes less than about 3 hours. [For reference, a single 800Mhz > Pentium III can do this. A two-processor 450Mhz machine should > also be able to do it. Old obsolete hardware from the early 90s > certainly can't do it; if it turns out that all we can get is old > obsolete hardware, I'll have to change the tester so that it > doesn't have to wait for all the builds to finish, but this will > take some time.] > I have found the current gcc regression test far from ideal. The main problem for me is shared library and thread aren't enabled by default on platforms where shared library and thread are used. As the result, PIC and thread aren't tested in many reports, like http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2002-04/msg00466.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2002-04/msg00520.html which may lead to under reported PIC and/or thread bugs. H.J.