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: GCC 3.2

On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 10:49:46AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> Right.  That's one of the reasons why I mentioned in an earlier message
> that we need a test which verifies that all of the exported functions
> in libstdc++ (and libgcc) are maintained over time -- which has the
> side effect of being a reasonable tester for name mangling changes.
> We need ways to verify structure layouts aren't changing, etc etc.

In message <>, Janis Johnson writes:
> >and new compilers available when running the tests.  I'm not at all sure
> >how to set up such tests for use with GCC.  The test harness needs to
> >know about two compilers under test rather than one,

For some time now my nightly autocrasher[*] has built both the current trunk
and the current 3.whatever-the-previous-release-was branch.  I've started
comparing exported symbol information from the's from both
builds.  (See the libstdc++ list archives of the last week or so; posts
from Benjamin and Ulrich and myself.)

I've verified that changing the size of an exported symbol triggers the
regression detection.  Work yet to be done:

1)  Test for layout changes, not just size changes.

2)  Find a way of putting this into the v3 repository.

I've no ideas on (1).  For (2) I'll be posting some thoughts on the v3
list later.

[*] "autobuilder" is just too positive and uplifing a name for something as
    hacky as what I wrote.

I would therefore like to posit that computing's central challenge, viz. "How
not to make a mess of it," has /not/ been met.
                                                 - Edsger Dijkstra, 1930-2002

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