This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the libstdc++ project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: RFA: Avoid simulator timeouts on more libstdc++ tests

> I'm sorry; I'll add 2009 today.  I don't know of a rule about adding
> years in which no changes were made, but I can certainly do that if
> people think it's the standard practice.
Well, I would suggest doing that. It is more or less our practice, at
least. Unless you can imagine legal problems... I can't.
> I didn't notice them because the simulator I was using didn't have that
> enabled, but I agree that it makes sense.  Is it pre-approved to make
> the corresponding changes to the corresponding wchar_t tests?
Of course.
> Y'all should use templates to avoid this code duplication in the tests.
> :-p :-)
Eh, there are quite a few things we could do better, in the testsuite.
This is one of those, I agree.
> More generally, I actually think "simulator" is the wrong predicate.  It
> should be "slow target" (which doesn't exist as a predicate at present);
> "simulator" is just a special case of that.  A little microcontroller
> might well have the same problem.  We could honor a setting in the
> DejaGNU board file, falling back to "simulator" if the board didn't
> explicitly set the flag.
I see... Maybe we could implement that relatively soon. As far as I'm
concerned, any improvement in this area is essentially pre-approved.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]