On 29/11/16 10:37, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> On 29/11/16 10:35, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
>> On 21/11/16 08:42, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17 November 2016 at 11:45, Kyrill Tkachov
>>> <kyrylo.tkac...@foss.arm.com> wrote:
>>>> On 17/11/16 10:31, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
>>>>> Hi Kyrill,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 17/11/16 10:11, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Andre,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 09/11/16 10:00, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
>>>>>>> Tested the series by bootstrapping arm-none-linux-gnuabihf and
>>>>>>> found no
>>>>>>> regressions, also did a normal build for arm-none-eabi and ran the
>>>>>>> acle.exp tests for a Cortex-M3.
>>>>>> Can you please also do a full testsuite run on
>>>>>> arm-none-linux-gnueabihf.
>>>>>> Patches have to be tested by the whole testsuite.
>>>>> That's what I have done and meant to say with "Tested the series by
>>>>> bootstrapping arm-none-linux-gnuabihf and found no regressions". I
>>>>> compared gcc/g++/libstdc++ tests on a bootstrap with and without the
>>>>> patches.
>>>>
>>>> Ah ok, great.
>>>>
>>>>> I'm happy to rerun the tests after a rebase when the patches get
>>>>> approved.
>>> FWIW, I ran a validation with the 6 patches applied, and saw no
>>> regression.
>>> Given the large number of new tests, I didn't check the full details.
>>>
>>> If you want to check that each configuration has the PASSes you expect,
>>> you can have a look at:
>>> http://people.linaro.org/~christophe.lyon/cross-validation/gcc-test-patches/242581-acle/report-build-info.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Christophe
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Kyrill
>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Andre
>>>>
>
> Hi Andre,
>
>> Ping. (For the patch series).
>
> Have you seen my review at:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg01778.html ?
> It might require some minor rework of some parts of the series.
>
> Thanks,
> Kyrill
>
>
Hmm no I had not, must have accidently marked it as read...
Ill go work on the comments. Sorry for the ping.
