libg++ as a checkin requirement?

Manfred Hollstein
Tue Sep 29 10:10:00 GMT 1998

On Mon, 28 September 1998, 10:37:28, wrote:

 > H.J. Lu wrote:
 > > may be related. It will be nice if people run test on libg++ before
 > > they check in changes. I have suggested it many times before. It went
 > > nowhere. The result is everyone wastes time on those bugs which can be
 > > caught by libg++. Should that be a check-in requirement?
 > If it is to be a check-in requirement, then we're going to to have dust
 > off libg++ and fix some (admittedly minor) portability problems with it.
 > It should probably be made part of the CVS tree.  We'd need to find the
 > dejagnu test stuff that was floating around for a while.  In all, we'd
 > basically have to accept that the package isn't dead.

All the dejagnu stuff has been incorporated into libg++- which
you can find on < >.

 > I do run libg++ tests once in a while since you suggest we do so.  But
 > they're so clearly a second-class citizen that it's just too frustrating
 > to do it frequently.
 > RJL


More information about the Gcc mailing list