Re: Libjava test failure Was: [PATCH] microblaze: microblaze.md: Use 'SI' instead of 'VOID' for operand 1 of 'call_value_intern'

[Chen Gang <gang dot chen dot 5i5j at gmail dot com>]

On 10/7/14 1:29, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Oct 6, 2014, at 8:36 AM, Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com> wrote:
>> For me, "make -k check" is suitable for one sub-system (e.g. for cross
>> building, and mainly focus on gcc), but not for global check (full
>> non-cross building check):
> 
> In our world, there is no sub-system, so, talk of such is outside the scope of gcc.
> 
> Let me repeat what he said differently.
> 
> You have two choices, fixing the port so that there are no unexpected failures or running check with -k.
> 
> I’d like to get to the point where all primary/secondary platforms can use make check directly, we’re not there yet.
> 
> The idea is that the single return value tells if if the suite passed or not.  This is an absolute measure, that, when achieved means one never has to compare previous/present results, just know that the suite passed.  Sometimes simple is better.
> 
>> - "make check" is the standard check for global,
> 
> No sub-system, no global.
> 

Theoretically, in each system (include gcc), always can be separated
into several 'sub-systems', and then 'global' means the system itself.

In our case, we say let 'global' pass checking means let gcc, gfortran,
g++, libjava ... all pass checking. But for mainly focus on constructing
environments, I will try to use upstream glibc instead of Darwin glibc:

 - If fix Throw_2, we know it is environments construction issue.

 - Else, I shall skip it (since "make -k check" should be OK).

And after finish testsuite under Darwin, within this month, I shall try
to find and send a patch for gcc, and pass testsuite under Darwin (it
seems it is not quite difficult to me).


Thanks
-- 
Chen Gang

Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed