Am 04.02.2014 03:14, schrieb Mike Stump: > On Feb 3, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Joseph S. Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 3 Feb 2014, Andrew Pinski wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Diego Novillo <dnovi...@google.com> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> If the presence of the build >>>>> tree makes writing some tests significantly simpler, I think that is >>>>> OK. >>>> >>>> I would like to discourage that. Testing an already installed GCC for >>>> which no build tree exists is a very useful feature. >>> >>> I agree. Here at Cavium, we use the packaged up toolchain that comes >>> from a RPM and test it so we are testing exactly what we ship out to >>> our customers. >> >> Similarly at Mentor. > > And the maintainer of the test suite thinks that supporting the people that > ship gcc to large numbers of people who help ensure the quality of gcc is > useful. :-) It is nice to hear from people that this type of testing is > useful; thanks.
could somebody please shed some light on how this is done? It's nice that everybody has this kind of testing, but the only bit in the gcc sources itself seems to be a bit bit-rot and incomplete (contrib/test_installed). thanks, Matthias
