This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: More cpp.texi updates
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- Subject: Re: More cpp.texi updates
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 10:55:58 -0700
- cc: Zack Weinberg <zackw at Stanford dot EDU>, Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>, Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot demon dot co dot uk>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
> The lack of quality control means that at present there is a significant
> probability that a random snapshot (as a sample of the CVS tree at a
> random time) doesn't build on some platforms. If the snapshot script were
> to build GCC, then those weeks would fail to have snapshots at all (though
> they might well build on other platforms).
True. Non-building on i686-pc-linux-gnu is quite rare, since it's so
heavily banged on, and there's nothing to say that we couldn't produce
the tarball anyhow in that case, using whatever happenned in the source
directory up to that point. It's also unclear to me whether distributing
such a snapshot has a whole lot of value; skipping that week doesn't
strike me as a catastrophe. It really does depend on what we're
trying to achieve with the snapshots.
>
> I see the snapshot diffs as being a way of reading and reviewing all
> changes to GCC over a week - in which case, the smaller the better.
> (Though a gcc-cvs-patches list, as I suggested in other/1634, might be
> better for this purpose.)
Yeah; all you want is a cron job that does `cvs diff' I think.
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com