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

Janis Johnson <> wrote:
> 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.

My main platform is 686 Intel.  It seems that there are already plenty
of people submitting test reports for that.  However, I also have
access to a Solaris 8 machine and an AIX 5L machine.  There seem to be
other people submitting test results for Solaris 8, so I might just
submit results for AIX.  In any case, don't worry.  I won't stop
submitting bugs.  Especially if they break my pet project.  However,
my time is limited.

> 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.

Are you talking mostly about the conformance tests?  Does it take an
excessive time only when compiling it with optimizations, or is it
always true?  It takes me about 15 minutes to build with no
optimizations on my Pentium II 366 laptop.  I can do a lot to speed up
things if optimization is the problem, but not much if the baseline is

The speed tests, on the other hand, can't really be sped up at all.
With optimizations, they only take 4-5 minutes on my laptop, so it
shouldn't be too much of a problem.

> 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 can actually break up the tests quite a bit.  The gcc crowd might
only be interested in the tests in test_T0, test_T1, test_T2,
test_T2s, and test_T3as.  I think those tests alone cover almost every
technique I use.  The other tests are there to make sure I implemented
everything correctly.  It doesn't really stretch the compiler any
differently, though.

> 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)

No problem.  I'll fold that into the next release.

Walter Landry

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