This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: V3: SPARC bug and tree freeze
- To: dewar at gnat dot com, kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu
- Subject: Re: V3: SPARC bug and tree freeze
- From: dewar at gnat dot com (Robert Dewar)
- Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 09:18:03 -0500 (EST)
- Cc: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
<<No, the issue is about different architectures and that's a major difference
between GNAT and GCC. For GNAT, it's relatively rare for a change to
cause failures on only one target, but for GCC it's quite common. So if
we standardize on GNU/Linux on x86 as the test target and a test fails,
how can a developer whose environment is another target going to be able to
debug it? That's why it's required that the test suite be run on the
developer's machine, so he can easily debug any failures.
That's of course perfectly reasonable, and there is no reason to change
that policy. All I am suggesting is the capability for *additional*
testing, that can't possibly make development more difficult! I am
certainly not suggesting that the remote testing on GNU/Linux would
substitute for local testing now.
But note that running the test suite on your own machine does not in
anyway solve the problem of your patches breaking other machines!
What would seem reasonable is an additional gating rule that you
must not break GNU/Linux. Since this is the primary target of
interest for the GNU community, that's a useful additional rule.