This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC 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: [C++/Obj-C++ PATCH] Fix Objective-C++ breakage


On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, Richard Guenther wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Kaveh R. GHAZI <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu> wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> >
> >  > I think that having all GCC developers build/test all languages all the
> >  > time is overkill.  I'm all for testing, and I certainly think that
> >  > people should make an effort to test languages that it seems like their
> >  > paches might be likely to impact (e.g., major C++ changes are likely to
> >  > affect Objectie-C++), but adding hours to everyones build/test cycles
> >  > seems like a bad tradeoff.  Instead, people who break Ada,
> >  > Objective-C++, etc., should be responsible to requests to fix the
> >  > breakage, and willing to revert their patches if no fix is immediately
> >  > found.
> >
> >
> >  I think a middle ground could be that we enable building objc++ by
> >  default, but not run its testsuite unless it is specifically enabled.
> >
> >  This would catch the type of bootstrap errors we've seen several times
> >  recently without causing significant extra time in the overall build time.
> >  I think there's like three extra .o files necessary to link cc1objcplus,
> >  the remainder are reused modules from the C and C++ frontends.  It
> >  certainly wouldn't be "adding hours" to everyone's test cycle.  And
> >  there's no objc++ specific target library AFAICT, so it's really cheap to
> >  activate.
> >
> >  Does this sound like a balanced and fair compromise?
>
> Even the 130 tests of the objc++ testsuite won't hurt anyone.  Building
> and testing libjava is what is most of the pain ;)
> Richard.


I guess you're right :-) we might as well throw in the few tests that it
has.  After all, there are thousands of tests in the other directories.
I double running the obj-c++ tests will make a dent.

I'll do a bootstrap --enable-langauges=all and run the testsuite with and
without the patch below to see what the actual timing difference is.

Assuming it's "really small" I hope no one objects to this patch?

		--Kaveh


2008-03-28  Kaveh R. Ghazi  <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>

	* config-lang.in (build_by_default): Build obj-c++ by default.

diff -rup orig/egcc-SVN20080327/gcc/objcp/config-lang.in egcc-SVN20080327/gcc/objcp/config-lang.in
--- orig/egcc-SVN20080327/gcc/objcp/config-lang.in	2008-03-14 00:34:31.000000000 +0100
+++ egcc-SVN20080327/gcc/objcp/config-lang.in	2008-03-28 00:58:54.000000000 +0100
@@ -28,9 +28,6 @@ language="obj-c++"

 compilers="cc1objplus\$(exeext)"

-# Per GCC Steering Committee.
-build_by_default="no"
-
 # By building the Objective-C and C++ front-ends, we will get
 # the object files we need, along with the libraries (libstdc++,
 # libobjc).


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