From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29798 invoked by alias); 26 May 2010 08:04:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 29526 invoked by uid 22791); 26 May 2010 08:04:47 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-yx0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-yx0-f175.google.com) (209.85.213.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 May 2010 08:04:41 +0000 Received: by yxe42 with SMTP id 42so28177yxe.20 for ; Wed, 26 May 2010 01:04:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.170.1 with SMTP id b1mr7397715ibz.13.1274861078214; Wed, 26 May 2010 01:04:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.37.193 with HTTP; Wed, 26 May 2010 01:04:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4BC4E09F.7080605@gmail.com> References: <20100409163655.GA25781@bromo.med.uc.edu> <4BBF5B7C.7060801@starynkevitch.net> <4BC07718.3060400@free.fr> <20100411141702.GA8481@bromo.med.uc.edu> <4BC1FDE3.6010309@gmail.com> <4BC4A28F.9000203@gnu.org> <4BC4E09F.7080605@gmail.com> From: Laurynas Biveinis Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 09:37:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Testing GCC on Cygwin made substantially easier [was Re: dragonegg in FSF gcc?] To: Dave Korn Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-05/txt/msg00545.txt.bz2 2010/4/13 Dave Korn : > =C2=A0Until I find time to do a more major rewrite, anyone who wants to d= o testing > on Cygwin could do worse than apply the sticking-plaster patch that I pos= ted at: > > =C2=A0http://www.mail-archive.com/cygwin-patches@cygwin.com/msg04677.html > > and build themselves a locally modified version of the Cygwin DLL that wi= ll > happily run make check at significant -j levels (I think I tried 12 at mo= st; > I've only got a dual-core cpu so it wasn't exactly efficient, but it prov= ed > that the patch holds up under substantial load). I do not test on Cygwin these days, but previously I did and I wish I knew this back then. I have added a note to http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Testing_GCC . Thanks for the info! --=20 Laurynas