This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: testing policy for C/C++ front end changes
- From: Sandra Loosemore <sandra at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, libstdc++ <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 19:23:04 -0700
- Subject: Re: testing policy for C/C++ front end changes
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <545FF50A dot 10402 at codesourcery dot com> <54604425 dot 2000103 at redhat dot com> <CAFiYyc3LHNPB0EMm2bzrhc5+h7wLHiqboe4_6AZgu4pNnEEkwg at mail dot gmail dot com> <5460D9B1 dot 1000803 at codesourcery dot com> <CAFiYyc0dzN-+An_WRnX8nxa3eyfSJjJ_P4izcgrfX69EH-84vA at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 11/11/2014 02:05 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Sandra Loosemore
On 11/10/2014 05:03 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 5:50 AM, Jeff Law <email@example.com> wrote:
On 11/09/14 16:13, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
and noticed that the policy is to require a complete bootstrap for C
changes, but not for C++. Given that GCC's implementation language is
now C++, isn't that backwards? I'm not trying to weasel out of the
extra work for my patch, just curious if the web site guidelines have
gotten bit-rotten after the switch to C++, or if the SC did indeed
consider the issue already and the published policy is accurate.
They've bit-rotted a bit. Interested in cons-ing up an update?
Bootstrap should now be required for both C and C++ FE changes
_and_ for libstdc++ changes as well given we start to pull in
libstdc++ headers during bootstrap.
Hmmmm. How about the attached patch? I also added a blurb about
target-specific patches that I think reflects current practice.
I think you need to retain the fact that one needs to bootstrap, not just
build GCC. Thus "If your change is to code that is not in a front
end, or is to the C or C++ front ends or <code>libgcc</code> or
libraries, you must perform a bootstrap of GCC with all languages enabled
by default, on at least one primary target, and run all testsuites."
Ok with that change.
I think I'll have to leave the policy rewriting to somebody else, then,
because I don't understand what to do about patches to a back end that
cannot be bootstrapped (e.g., a bare-metal or embedded target where GCC
is normally built as a cross, or where the patch submitter only has a
simulator available for testing, etc).