From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8378 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2004 18:34:05 -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 8311 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2004 18:34:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mallaury.noc.nerim.net) (62.4.17.101) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Jan 2004 18:34:03 -0000 Received: from tetto.gentiane.org (espie.gentiane.org [62.212.102.210]) by mallaury.noc.nerim.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21DAE62D53 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:34:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from tetto.gentiane.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tetto.gentiane.org (8.12.9/8.12.1) with ESMTP id i0JIXxlM022478 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:34:00 +0100 (CET) Received: (from espie@localhost) by tetto.gentiane.org (8.12.9/8.12.1/Submit) id i0JIXvgx020496 for gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:33:58 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:34:00 -0000 From: Marc Espie To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal Message-ID: <20040119183356.GA1133@tetto.gentiane.org> Reply-To: espie@nerim.net References: <1073951351.3458.162.camel@minax.codesourcery.com> <20040119013113.044D74895@quatramaran.ens.fr> <400BB40B.4070101@dsvr.net> <400BE1D3.7010105@gnat.com> <400C00DF.5050006@coyotegulch.com> <400C16CE.6060000@gnat.com> <400C1D07.9020300@coyotegulch.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <400C1D07.9020300@coyotegulch.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01346.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 01:08:07PM -0500, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > This is what I meant by lauding GCC's "support for older hardware." I > did quite a bit of cross-compiling for an embedded telephon application; > I sure as heck don't expect my cell phone to run GCC! One key point that I'd like to make, again, is that cross-compiling kills old architectures, in terms of code quality. I believe that the single most extensive test one can do is to build a complete distribution on a system. For quite a few cpu, there exists generalist machines, that can, in theory, compile gcc, and then use it to compile an OS. If you cross-compile everything, you will only run a select few applications on that OS. Experience has shown again and again that actually compiling large pieces of software on a machine is one of the best all-purpose testcase one can wish for, between exercising the OS, running lots of small processes, and dieing very quickly as soon as some faulty code happens, be it in the compiler, the linker, the kernel, or in whatever piece such a complex software architecture is composed of. Remember that note about signal 11 on PCs, being attributable to faulty memory ? Do you think that it is a coincidence such signals were most often seen while running a compilation, to the extent that an item had to be added to the GCC FAQ, mentioning that it was faulty memory, and likely not GCC's fault.