Re: Comments on check-abi

[Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>]

Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz@redhat.com> writes:

> Hey Andreas
>
>>- Unify names: We should unify the names of the directories and find
>>  the right one in case that somebody gives a different name to
>>  configure.  Also the i586-linux and i686-linux ABIs should be the
>>  same.  I'll send a patch implementing this in a separate email.
>
> I think unifying names is a good idea.
>
> However, I'd rather that the abi directories match the config/cpu ones.
> Sadly, they do not. Also, the vendor bit is immaterial: so only cpu and
> os should matter. What do you think about:
>
> i686-pc-linux-gnu 
>
> to
>
> i486-linux-gnu
>
> ?
>
> Similarly for the rest of the directories. Then, your proposed patch to
> do the necessary matches.

Yes, that's fine with me.

>
>>- Create baseline automatically if not exists: We should create the
>>  baseline automatically if it does not exist so that we encourage
>>  users to send the results in.
>
> Yes.
>
>>- We should always run the testsuite and consider a failure in
>>  check-abi a hard error.
>
> On a release branch only. But, once a release branch is set, and the ABI
> bits have been versioned, I'm for this.
>
>>- Add option to run with multilibs: The problem is that some compilers
>>  are multilib enabled, e.g. the MIPS compiler can support three
>>  multilibs.  For others the multilibs are other archs, e.g. the
>>  32-bit x86-64 multilib should have the same ABI as the i686
>>  multilib.
>>
>>  Currently check-ABI is only run for the default ABI, the test is not
>>  multi-lib aware.
>>
>>  I run on x86_64-linux-gnu the testsuite with
>>   RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board 'unix{-m32,}'" 
>>  in the environment to test both 32-bit x86 and 64-bit x86-64 code
>>  generation.  This gives 32/ subdirectories when building and the
>>  testsuite handles this fine.
>>
>>  My suggestion is to add MULTISUBDIR ("32/" for AMD64) to baseline_file in
>>  aclocal.m4 and then create the special ABI and let us test it
>
> Hmmm. This sounds good. Do you have this working?

Unfortunatly I haven't any of this working - besides my one patch.  I
can try to look at this but most of this internally is quite unknown
to me :-(

Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger
  SuSE Labs aj@suse.de
   private aj@arthur.inka.de
    http://www.suse.de/~aj

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature