Re: Small update to reversed_comparison_code

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin at redhat dot com>]

Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:

> >>>>> "Joseph" == Joseph S Myers <jsm28@cam.ac.uk> writes:
> 
>   Robert Dewer volunteered for ACT
>   <URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2000-11/msg00492.html> to provide a machine
>   for a test-before-checkin system.  Perhaps they could provide such a
> 
> Yup.  Robert and I are in cahoots, here, actually.  We've talked about
> this amongst ourselves for a while.  I know how to get a few machines,
> including some from major UNIX vendors -- but we need more than a few,
> sadly...
> 

Is it just me, or is this starting to sound like a distributed CPU
time project.

GCCTesting@Home.

Funny, but if you had people with spare cycles on enough target
machine types, it would work. This is assuming the problem is getting
one of every machine. I'm willing to bet at least one random gcc user
for each platform would let you do it, if it only required say 100
meg, and a client they had to download.
The real problem here is that it's a serious pain in the ass to do the
testing, and users don't like serious pain in the asses.

If you designed something that someone only need download and compile,
that waited to hear from the server,  automatically did the bootstrap
during idle cycles after the server told it to, and reported
results to a central server, and went away until the server asked it
to do another bootstrap, i'd think more people would be willing to
do it.

If someone completes the technical stuff required, getting people to
do it is all in the marketing.

Heck, I know i'd run the client in the background. I just don't want
to have to intervene in any way\. If it just was there, happily
chugging in the background 24 hours a day, i wouldn't care.

--Dan