This is the mail archive of the 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: Successful Compilation

On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 03:16:13PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> mike stump <> wrote:
> > Bear in mind, if you would like, you can help contribute to the effort
> > by just downloading snapshots every now and then and running your
> > testsuite and emailing the results to gcc testresults mailing list.
> > And if testing shows up regressions in the compiler or runtime
> > library, to file bug reports promptly noting when last it worked, and
> > when exactly it failed.
> I'm hesitant to submit results to the testresults list for software no
> one has never heard of.  In any case, I'd like the test suite to be
> useful to others.  That will make it easier for anyone hacking on gcc
> or any other compiler to see what's going on.  The only real problem
> right now is the spurious implicit typename warnings, which seems to
> be covered by PR 5507.

Walter, I think that you and Mike are talking about different things
here.  You're talking about the test results for FTensor, which you
would like to have used as part of GCC integration testing, while Mike
is talking about the normal GCC testsuite.

Mike has a good point that all GCC users can help out by building
snapshots occasionally, submitting test results, building their own
favorite software packages, and reporting bugs.  This is particularly
useful in the last couple of months before a release when there are a
lot of GCC contributors ready to fix bugs.

Walter is proposing another package for integration testing.  It makes
extensive use of templates in a way that stresses the C++ compiler, and
it comes with tests whose results are easy to interpret.  Those make it
worthwhile to try out.  A disadvantage is that it takes a very long time
to compile, at least on my Itanium system.

> > > I don't know what kind of format is preferred for the test suite.  I'd
> > > be happy to modify the test so that it outputs the results in a
> > > suitable form.
> > 
> > PASS: unique name of testcase
> > FAIL: unique name of testcase
> > 
> > and for the names of the testcases to be stable, and for the total
> > number to remain relatively constant (monotonically increasing over
> > the years of course).

This is true for tests in the GCC test suite.  A similar format would
make the FTensor test results easy to evaluate automatically.
> I've set up a new version (1.1-patch-10) such that all 5000+ tests have
> unique names.  A lot of these tests look at similar code
> (e.g. replacing + with -), so the actual number of tests of the
> compiler is much less.  If there is more that should be done, let me
> know.

Great!  I'm building the tests for 1.1--patch-5 right now and was going
to recommend that you break down the tests somewhat.  It would be nice
to be able to specify subsets of them, to allow doing some of them as
part of our local nightly testing.  I'd also like to see the flags in
the Makefile broken apart so that it would be simple to change the
optimization options without needing to specify the rest of them, e.g.,

CXXOPTS = -g -O2
CXXFLAGS = -ftemplate-depth-100 -Drestrict= -w -DFTENSOR_DEBUG $(CXXOPTS)


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