This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Confirming/Closing GNATS reports
- From: Dara Hazeghi <dhazeghi at yahoo dot com>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- Cc: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 09:15:52 -0700 (PDT)
- Subject: Re: Confirming/Closing GNATS reports
--- "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 6 May 2003, Dara Hazeghi wrote:
>
>
> Where the bug is an --enable-checking failure (tree
> check, RTL check error
> messages mainly) testing against mainline (or a
> --enable-checking build of
> 3.3 branch) is necessary - mainline has
> --enable-checking on by default,
> release branches don't. Testing mainline is a good
> idea anyway, in case
> the problem has regressed, though for cross-compiler
> tests it's more
> effort than for native builds for which you just
> keep several different
> compiler version installations about.
(sorry for yahoo mail munging the linebreaks)
Thanks for the comments Joseph. Actually keeping a
bunch of cross-compilers isn't a big deal, since by
cross compiler we're basically talking about
cc1,cc1plus etc. for perhaps 15 or 20 target triplets
x 2 branches.
Regarding cross-compilers thought, if the report is of
an ICE or compiler segfault, is running the
preprocessed code through a cross-compiler (mainline
and branch) without a crash sufficient? Thanks,
Dara
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com