This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: More test results...
- From: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>
- To: "Stephen M. Webb" <stephen dot webb at bregmasoft dot com>
- Cc: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 12:34:08 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: More test results...
> > Incidentally, how are you testing KDE?
> >
> > I see the KDE sources here:
> > http://download.au.kde.org/pub/kde/unstable/kde-3.0-rc2/
>
> I'd be happy to get them to compile at this point. A successful
> compile takes many hours, assuming my hard drive doesn't max out part
> way through. At the moment compiles fail on that vector<bool> problem.
>
> I've been playing with the beta2 sources since that's what I've got.
Ok. The rc1 sources were around until recently. When the rc2 sources get
posted I can give them a try.
> I have, through my employer, a commercial license for Qt so I have a
> later snapshot than the free version. I've been testing version 3.0.2
> bacuse that's what I need.
Aaagh. Ok. Well, I might have to lean on you for this part then. I don't
have this kind of access.
> At the moment I keep a 2.95 toolchain around for KDE stuff and Linux
> kernel rebuilds. It would be nice if I could get rid of it.
That's the plan.....
> KDE is a big effort to build, but it does come with its own testsuite.
> I'm not sure how expansive its test coverage is, but KDE itself
> certainly covers an awful lot of territory, and requires that Qt be
> buildable and working.
Ok well I'll start trying this in a bit. At that point, perhaps I will be
able to say something intelligent...
> Since Qt is a commercial product it doesn't ship with a testsuite.
> Perhaps it's sufficient that KDE (rather than Qt) be made the release
> criterion, and that acceptance criteria include that it builds and that
> it passes its own testsuite with no regressions from an established
> benchmark such as GCC 2.95.
Sounds good.