Re: PATCH: Two C regressions in GCC 3.4.

[Ian Lance Taylor <ian at wasabisystems dot com>]

"Joseph S. Myers" <jsm@polyomino.org.uk> writes:

> > (I ran into a couple of these building FC2 with the tree-ssa branch and had
> >  queued them for reinvestigation).
> 
> It's clear a regression tester doing this sort of thing (building
> distributions and reporting changes in what builds or diagnostics) would
> be of value to see what a patch breaks (or how useful a new diagnostic in
> -Wall is on real code, or how frequent some deprecated usage is) so it can
> then be judged at the time whether the breakage is correct (broken
> software) or incorrect (broken GCC) rather than maybe some time later.  
> But I guess the resource requirements for doing such builds frequently
> enough would be rather too large.

I have machines which sit around and do nothing but run Seti@Home.
I'm sure there are others in the same boat.  I would be happy to have
those machines regularly build packages with compiler snapshots.  They
wouldn't report back too often, but I suppose that even getting a
report once every couple of weeks would help.

However, since this is not a big interest of mine, I'm not too likely
to write the scripts for it myself.  But I'm willing to help out if
somebody else starts such a project going.

Ian