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: fix kennerism

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).


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