From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29117 invoked by alias); 22 Jul 2004 16:26:29 -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 29105 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2004 16:26:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 22 Jul 2004 16:26:28 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i6MGMISt013641; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 12:22:18 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i6MGQQH19993; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 12:26:26 -0400 Received: from roscoe.artheist.org (vpn50-51.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.51]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i6MGQNL28134; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:26:23 -0700 Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 17:21:00 -0000 From: Benjamin Kosnik To: Laurent GUERBY Cc: mark@codesourcery.com, jakub@redhat.com, janis187@us.ibm.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, vmakarov@redhat.com, torvalds@osdl.org Subject: Re: Testing GCC & OSDL (Was: RFC: Generated structure layout tests for gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1 (take 2)) Message-Id: <20040722112556.082f8b37.bkoz@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1090434729.10860.131.camel@pc.site> References: <20040715172523.GN21264@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20040721151540.GW21264@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20040721164133.GA4227@us.ibm.com> <20040721171430.GX21264@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <40FEABA5.4070500@codesourcery.com> <1090434729.10860.131.camel@pc.site> Organization: Red Hat / Chicago Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-07/txt/msg01069.txt.bz2 I think the testing you are proposing wouldn't hurt, regardless of the specific patch in question that started this discussion. Indeed, having a patch server that can validate proposed patches has been a long discussed feature. Besides machine resources, this project also needs an administrator, and some initial setup. Are you suggesting OSDL help with all of these needs, or just machine resources? >It would also be fair to all GCC developpers, even those who >cannot afford more than a 486SX with 2MB of RAM or >who don't work on a Free Software company with appropriate >ressources. Keeping the development process possible, even for people without hardware resources, is a worthy goal for the gcc project: I would be surprised if anybody disagreed with this. -benjamin