On 21/10/2019 12:51, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 18/10/2019 21:48, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
Each patch should produce a working compiler (it did when it was
originally written), though since the patch set has been re-ordered
slightly there is a possibility that some of the intermediate steps
may have missing test updates that are only cleaned up later.
However, only the end of the series should be considered complete.
I've kept the patch as a series to permit easier regression hunting
should that prove necessary.
Thanks for this information: my validation system was designed in such a
way that it will run the GCC testsuite after each of your patches, so
I'll keep in mind not to report regressions (I've noticed several already).
I can perform a manual validation taking your 29 patches as a single one
and compare the results with those of the revision preceding the one
were you committed patch #1. Do you think it would be useful?
Christophe
I think if you can filter out any that are removed by later patches and
then report against the patch that caused the regression itself then
that would be the best. But I realise that would be more work for you,
so a round-up against the combined set would be OK.
BTW, I'm aware of an issue with the compiler now generating
<alu> reg, reg, shift <reg>
in Thumb2; no need to report that again.
Thanks,
R.
