This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: fix kennerism
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>
- Cc: jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 17:11:31 -0500
- Subject: Re: fix kennerism
- References: <10112302153.AA06315@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Sun, Dec 30, 2001 at 04:53:55PM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
> What does "unmodified" mean here? Neither patch development nor testing take
> zero time and the FSF GCC tree changes during that time. There's no way to
> run a test on what the tree will be once the patch is installed because
> there's no way to predict what that will be.
> Consider the following: I develop and test a patch and update my tree to the
> then-current FSF GCC tree, start off a test run, and go to sleep.
Unless your machine is very slow, it can manage two bootstraps/two
regression testins overnight, so you can update your tree, check if your
patches still apply, run a script with bootstrap/make check on the unmodified CVS,
patches application and second bootstrap/make check (in a different obj
tree, so you can see everything in the morning).
> * Testing multiple patches together in the tree in a single test run.
> As a practical matter, I don't have a choice because I get one testing run
> per day and would like to be able to fix more than one thing per day. But
> what's the risk here? If only some of the patches were doing to be
> installed, I'd agree with you, but since the intent is to install them *all*
> if the test passes, what is being shortcut here?
Here I don't think the risk is big enough to require separate bootstraps for
each patch. Bootstrap takes long time (and because make check is not
parallelized make check takes long time too).