This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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: QMTest and the G++ testsuite




--On Wednesday, May 22, 2002 09:18:27 PM -0300 Alexandre Oliva 
<aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:

> On May 22, 2002, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>
>> My goal is to get the process started -- I've offerred to do what it
>> takes for GCC.
>
> My concern is that, by going down that path, we may soon get into a
> situation in which most people would trade DejaGNU for QMTest because
> of the features it offers (and you're doing a good job at showing me
> and others that it does have some significant advantages), in such a
> way that we may soon start getting chunks of the testsuite that depend
> exclusively on QMTest, and then there will be no way back.

I think we should try to prevent that.  It would be unwise to commit
ourselves until we're sure we want to go whole hog.  That's one of the
nice things about this approach -- we don't actually have to change
the tests themselves.

> QMTest, but I'd like some assurance that no tests that depend
> exclusively on QMTest will be introduced, at least until QMTest can
> actually replace DejaGNU without major hassles in the more complex
> testing scenarios that Red Hat and probably a couple of other
> toolchain-for-embedded-development building and testing businesses
> depend on.

I'm not personally willing to commit to doing whatever it may take for
Red Hat to perform every last instance of its testing.

The FSF version of GCC is for its users; catering to particular vendors
isn't part of our mission.  On the other hand, there's no reason to
make life difficult for our vendors, or to make it harder for anyone
to use GCC for any legitimate purpose.

I have committed to doing what it takes to get things set up for
most reasonable uses including cross-compilation, etc.  If people want
Kermit, I'll do kermit.  Of course, if the people that wan't Kermit
aren't going to be willing to switch -- or at least try -- when we get
Kermit, well then there ain't much point...

I'm not sure there's *ever* going to be a reason to depend on QMTest
exclusively.  There's nothing particularly horrible about the format
used to express compiler tests in GCC/G++, and as long as the format
stays the same, DejaGNU will keep on working just fine.

>> Note that my first request was to *permit* people to do their testing
>> with QMTest.  That allows us to compare the tools side by side --
>> without forcing anyone to switch or committing us to switching.
>
> If it were not for my concerns exposed above, of introducing an option
> that soon becomes a dependency, I'd be all for it.  Perhaps I'm being
> too negative, or too conservative, but I've been burned by such soft
> introduction of dependencies too many times to refrain from bringing
> these points up in public.

I've now expressed a committment not to try to insidiously worm
QMTest-specific features into the testsuite. :-)

Remember that, at this point, we're only talking about allowing people
to use a different technology to validate their changes.  We've not
commmitted ourselves to doing anything.

Does that satisfy you.

--
Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com


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