[Bug libstdc++/60793] Add target *-*-dragonfly* to dg-options on 172 libstdc++ tests

[manu at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60793

Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |manu at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to John Marino from comment #6)
> I've had copyright assignment for years but haven't submitted anything
> substantial because of my limited time and worry that I'll have to chase the
> patches and hound and beg and then do some kind of full bootstrap testing
> that I'm not prepared to do.  The perceived barrier is very high.  That's my
> problem, but that's why I have hoarded these patches for over two years
> (cutting off my nose because I have to keep regenerating them for each
> release)

But this is something that everybody has to do! It is a trade-off, does it take
more effort to keep the patches up-to-date or to get them approved?

You should expect reviewers to ask for changes. That is the whole point of
having a review process.

And for sure you will need to ping the patches several times, there are very
few reviewers and they are doing also 99% of the work, so they miss patches all
the time. 

Also, I think you will need to do a full bootstrap+testsuite, why wouldn't you
be able to do that? If you don't have a machine powerful enough, you may
contact the compile farm to install Dragonfly on a virtual machine:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm

It is also essential that you submit your port in a way that makes it easy for 
reviewers to know what they are supposed to look at. See a good example:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg00278.html

> Is there a testing farm and could dragonfly x86-64 be added to it?  Frankly
> I don't care about the i386 platform which will go away at some point, the
> sooner the better.  In not, you would expect a weekly cron to attempt to
> build gcc and mail the results in automatically?  That could be done
> probably.

http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm

I am not sure what are the requirements for a tertiary platform, but surely
they are very loose once accepted: The port has to be basically unmaintained to
get removed.