This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Build status page:Succes and failures.
- From: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot COM>
- To: caligula at cam029208 dot student dot utwente dot nl (Gcc k6 testing account)
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 09:38:22 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: Build status page:Succes and failures.
Martijn Uffing writes:
> I'm following the build status page discussion and here are my 2 cents.
> When 3.0.2 was released I reported a succesfull build on
> k6-redhat-linux-gnu and submitted the testresults with
> test_summary.(October 24). Following this discussion,I tried to build 3.0
> and 3.0.1. Those bootstraps were NOT succesfull.
> So here's the summary on the k6 side.
> gcc-3.0 -->No bootstrap.
> gcc-3.0.1 -->No bootstrap.
> gcc-3.0.2 -->Succsesfull bootstrap.
> gcc-3.0.x-cvs -->Succesfull bootstrap.
> gcc-3.1-cvs -->Succesfull bootstrap.
> All this with:
> gcc : 2.96-97
> binutils : 188.8.131.52.8
> glibc : 2.2.4
Janis, given this I repeat my request that the build status page be
specific about which releases were tested. I realize that you may not
have some of the details that came in before, but at least from here
on out the information should not be thrown away.
Also, the page should not assume no regressions (that is, we should not
assume that because 3.0.1 was tested, we know that 3.0.2 works, unless
we have a report confirming that it does).