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: [PATCH] Delete powerpcspe

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 11:36:29AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 2:37 PM Jeff Law <> wrote:
> > One way to deal with these problems is to create a fake simulator that
> > always returns success.  That's what my tester does for the embedded
> > targets.  That allows us to do reliable compile-time tests as well as
> > the various scan-whatever tests.
> >
> > It would be trivial to start sending those results to gcc-testresults.
> I think it would be more useful if the execute testing would be
> reported as UNSUPPORTED rather than simply PASS w/o being
> sure it does.


> But while posting to gcc-testresults is a sign of testing tracking
> regressions (and progressions!) in bugzilla and caring for those
> bugs is far more important...

If results are posted to gcc-testresults then other people can get a
feel whether the port is detoriating, and at what rate.  If no results
are posted we just have to assume the worst.  Most people do not have
the time (or setup) to test it for themselves.


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