This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PATCH: Two C regressions in GCC 3.4.
- From: law at redhat dot com
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk>
- Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:39:06 -0700
- Subject: Re: PATCH: Two C regressions in GCC 3.4.
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <Pine.LNX.email@example.com>, "Joseph
S. Myers" 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.
It's rather expensive. On my little cluster (5 cpus) it takes nearly
48 hours to build FC2 -- and that is with several large packages not building
yet (glibc, parts of kde, openoffice). During that time little else can
happen on those machines, so it's not something I do on a regular basis.