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: [LTO] Request for testing: Last merge from trunk before final merge

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 11:58:30AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> In preparation for the final merge into mainline.  I need to test
> the branch on various platforms.  Richi is currently testing on
> i586, ppc, ppc64, ia64, s390, s390x.
> If anyone has free cycles I would appreciate results from other
> ELF-capable targets.
> $ svn co svn://
> $ mkdir bld && cd bld
> $ ../lto/configure --enable-lto && make
> You will need to have libelf 0.8.12 installed
> (
> I have made some cleanups in this merge:
> - Spurious changes that were not needed.
> - Removed LTO testing from several testsuites to prevent
>   excessive build slowdowns.  We essentially only test the lto
>   directories, some dg tests, executable tests and not much else.
>   In particular, we no longer test libstdc++ with lto enabled (it
>   had 4 failures) and fortran (it had 143 failures). @some
>   point, I would like to bring LTO testing back to fortran, but I
>   understand that this needs fixes in the FE.
>   My plan is to set up a tester that forces LTO builds on every
>   testsuite.  I will move unique failures to one of the LTO
>   directories and create tracking bugs (help appreciated in doing
>   this).
> - We no longer do functional testing for LTO to decide whether to
>   run LTO tests.  We just test whether LTO has been enabled.
>   Before, we would silently refuse to run any LTO testing if the
>   little program used to detect LTO was broken.
> - Removed two hacks in the C++ mangler.  In free_lang_data, we
>   were creating more mangled names than necessary.  As Jason
>   pointed out, there is no need to generate mangled names for
>   templates.  I added a new langhook that need_assembler_name_p
>   calls if set.  The only front end that needs it (so far) is
>   C++.
> Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64.
> Diego.

    Has this patch been tested on non-elf targets like darwin
yet to make sure they still build? If not, is the proposed
merge patch against current gcc trunk available somewhere for
testing on darwin? It would be nice to get ahead of the curve
if this merge is going to break the darwin builds.

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