This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Beyond GCC 3.0: Summing Up
- To: dewar at gnat dot com
- Subject: Re: Beyond GCC 3.0: Summing Up
- From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 10:22:55 -0700
- Cc: aoliva at redhat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu,mark at codesourcery dot com
- References: <20010710171630.D4E50F2B59@nile.gnat.com>
On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 01:16:30PM -0400, dewar@gnat.com wrote:
> <<That is the problem. I agree we should have a full qualification for
> a major relese, even that won't guarantee you a perfect release. We
> are talking the bug fix release here. Presumably, changes are
> relatively small. Shouldn't put our energy into getting more releases
> out rather than making full qualifications? To me, making a bug fix
> release itself is one kind of qualification. Many gcc bugs won't be
> discovered until the users start using the new gcc. Why not let users
> help us make a great gcc, which the gcc developers can't do by
> ourselves alone anyway?
> >>
>
> First of all, there is no such thing as a "small change" when it comes
> to being sure that you have no regressions, you really have to run the
> complete test suite. note that this is what I mean by full qualification
> in this context, bootstrap on all major targets, and run the test suite
> on all major targets to verify that there is no regression at this level.
> That should not be so hard (it should, and could, be automated).
I though it was implied. I believe we have different people responsible to
make such "qualification" for each major platform. How long does it take
to make such a "full qualification", 24 hours?
H.J.