This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Overwhelmed by GCC frustration
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Oleg Endo <oleg dot endo at t-online dot de>
- Cc: Georg-Johann Lay <avr at gjlay dot de>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 17:07:35 +0000
- Subject: Re: Overwhelmed by GCC frustration
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <597F2FB4.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Tue, 1 Aug 2017, Oleg Endo wrote:
> To improve the situation, we'd need a lot more target specific tests
> which test for those regressions that you have mentioned. Then of
> course somebody has to run all those tests on all those various
> targets. I think that's the biggest problem. But still, with a test
Code size is something where you could in principle have a regression
tester that runs for all target architectures without needing target
hardware (though you still need some way to decide which regressions,
whether sudden or gradual, are significant and which are noise, and
someone needs to keep monitoring the results and reporting regressions).
Much like the compilation parts of the GCC testsuites (where identifying
regressions would be rather easier).
The compilation-only regression testers I set up for glibc are very
helpful for ensuring it stays building for minority architectures, albeit
with existing compiler regressions for ColdFire and SH that predate
setting up the testers, and with execution test results still being rather
a mess for less-tested configurations (and anyone can do the compilation
tests themselves with the build-many-glibcs.py script, though it takes a
while without a many-cores system to run it on).
Joseph S. Myers