From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18001 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2014 17:29:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 17972 invoked by uid 89); 6 Oct 2014 17:29:40 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=3.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,MEDICAL_SUBJECT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: resqmta-po-10v.sys.comcast.net Received: from resqmta-po-10v.sys.comcast.net (HELO resqmta-po-10v.sys.comcast.net) (96.114.154.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 06 Oct 2014 17:29:39 +0000 Received: from resomta-po-10v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.234]) by resqmta-po-10v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id ztUF1o00653iAfU01tVeVp; Mon, 06 Oct 2014 17:29:38 +0000 Received: from [IPv6:2001:558:6045:a4:40c6:7199:cd03:b02d] ([IPv6:2001:558:6045:a4:40c6:7199:cd03:b02d]) by resomta-po-10v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id ztVc1o00J2ztT3H01tVdYN; Mon, 06 Oct 2014 17:29:38 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Subject: Re: Libjava test failure Was: [PATCH] microblaze: microblaze.md: Use 'SI' instead of 'VOID' for operand 1 of 'call_value_intern' From: Mike Stump In-Reply-To: <5432B6F6.4050504@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 17:29:00 -0000 Cc: Andrew Haley , Michael Eager , Jeff Law , davem@redhat.com, gcc-patches List , java-patches@gcc.gnu.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <855EEF7C-973D-4675-BE11-FBEF9CA64C69@comcast.net> References: <5430B7E8.1060001@gmail.com> <5430BBBE.8050905@gmail.com> <543215AE.7080206@gmail.com> <543254DB.9020600@redhat.com> <54329EEC.8040609@gmail.com> <54329F17.7050107@redhat.com> <5432A6C5.8040205@gmail.com> <5432A712.2080206@redhat.com> <5432AE7A.2060206@gmail.com> <5432AE68.4030700@redhat.com> <5432B6F6.4050504@gmail.com> To: Chen Gang X-SW-Source: 2014-q4/txt/msg00011.txt.bz2 On Oct 6, 2014, at 8:36 AM, Chen Gang wrote: > For me, "make -k check" is suitable for one sub-system (e.g. for cross > building, and mainly focus on gcc), but not for global check (full > non-cross building check): In our world, there is no sub-system, so, talk of such is outside the scope= of gcc. Let me repeat what he said differently. You have two choices, fixing the port so that there are no unexpected failu= res or running check with -k. I=92d like to get to the point where all primary/secondary platforms can us= e make check directly, we=92re not there yet. The idea is that the single return value tells if if the suite passed or no= t. This is an absolute measure, that, when achieved means one never has to= compare previous/present results, just know that the suite passed. Someti= mes simple is better. > - "make check" is the standard check for global, No sub-system, no global.