From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21971 invoked by alias); 9 Dec 2002 05:03:46 -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 21960 invoked from network); 9 Dec 2002 05:03:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (199.232.76.164) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Dec 2002 05:03:45 -0000 Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18LG52-0006wm-00 for gcc@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2002 00:03:44 -0500 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18LG4w-0003x2-00 for gcc@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2002 00:03:40 -0500 Received: from dibbler.ne.client2.attbi.com ([66.31.42.180]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18LG4v-0003wl-00 for gcc@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2002 00:03:37 -0500 Received: from dibbler.ne.client2.attbi.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dibbler.ne.client2.attbi.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB95403d016039; Mon, 9 Dec 2002 00:04:00 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from rodrigc@dibbler.ne.client2.attbi.com) Received: (from rodrigc@localhost) by dibbler.ne.client2.attbi.com (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gB953xnk016038; Mon, 9 Dec 2002 00:03:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 22:20:00 -0000 From: Craig Rodrigues To: Tom Lord Cc: gcc@gnu.org Subject: Re: source mgt. requirements solicitation Message-ID: <20021209000359.A15875@attbi.com> References: <200212090022.QAA25501@emf.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <200212090022.QAA25501@emf.net>; from lord@emf.net on Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 04:22:22PM -0800 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-16.7 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES, SIGNATURE_SHORT_DENSE,SPAM_PHRASE_01_02,USER_AGENT, USER_AGENT_MUTT version=2.41 X-Spam-Level: X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00449.txt.bz2 On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 04:22:22PM -0800, Tom Lord wrote: > One quick request: someone said "Hey, testing is already automated." > Can I please see a slight elaboration on the form and function of that > automation? As far as I can tell, there are are number of people who run daily (or frequent) builds of GCC on a few platforms. They use the output of "make test", which kicks off some tests which use the DejaGNU testing framework, and post their output to the gcc-testresults mailing list: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/ CodeSourcery has been working on converting the GCC testsutie over to QMTest: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-05/msg01978.html While the existing GCC testing process has its benefits, I don't think it is perfect. It would be great if someone had some positive ideas towards improving the GCC testing process. To give you some ideas of some of the problems in the current process, Wolfgang Banerth has informed me that he has identified 71 current C++ regressions from GCC 3.2 in the mainline branch of GCC, based on reading reports in GNATS. Granted, many of these regressions might be related and duplicates, but still, that is quite a number of regressions to track down and fix. I'd be very interested in any ideas which could improve this process. -- Craig Rodrigues http://www.gis.net/~craigr rodrigc@attbi.com