On Jun 29, 2012, Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net wrote:
First, let get to the heart of the matter. That is the behavior of
compiler.
That's a distraction in the context of a patch to improve a feature
that's already present in the testsuite machinery, isn't it? I have no
objection to
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Alexandre Oliva aol...@redhat.com wrote:
On Jun 29, 2012, Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net wrote:
First, let get to the heart of the matter. That is the behavior of
compiler.
That's a distraction in the context of a patch to improve a feature
that's already
On Jul 2, 2012, at 4:06 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 29, 2012, Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net wrote:
First, let get to the heart of the matter. That is the behavior of
compiler.
That's a distraction in the context of a patch to improve a feature
that's already present in the
On Jun 27, 2012, Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net wrote:
On Jun 27, 2012, at 2:07 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Why? We don't demand a working plugin. Indeed, we disable the use of
the plugin if we find a linker that doesn't support it. We just don't
account for the possibility of finding a
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 04:16:55AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 27, 2012, Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net wrote:
On Jun 27, 2012, at 2:07 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Why? We don't demand a working plugin. Indeed, we disable the use of
the plugin if we find a linker that doesn't
On Jun 28, 2012, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 04:16:55AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
I'd very be surprised if I asked for an i686 native build to package and
install elsewhere, and didn't get a plugin just because the build-time
linker wouldn't have been
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Alexandre Oliva aol...@redhat.com wrote:
On Jun 28, 2012, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 04:16:55AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
I'd very be surprised if I asked for an i686 native build to package and
install elsewhere, and
On Jun 28, 2012, at 12:16 AM, Alexandre Oliva aol...@redhat.com wrote:
On Jun 27, 2012, Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net wrote:
On Jun 27, 2012, at 2:07 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Why? We don't demand a working plugin. Indeed, we disable the use of
the plugin if we find a linker that doesn't
On Jun 28, 2012, at 4:39 AM, Alexandre Oliva aol...@redhat.com wrote:
On Jun 28, 2012, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 04:16:55AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
I'd very be surprised if I asked for an i686 native build to package and
install elsewhere, and didn't
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 07:03:37AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
Also, this scenario of silently deciding whether or not to use the
linker plugin could bring us to different test results for the same
command lines. I don't like that.
Right, which is why the static configuration of the host
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 07:03:37AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
Also, this scenario of silently deciding whether or not to use the
linker plugin could bring us to different test results for the same
command lines. I don't
On Jun 28, 2012, Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net wrote:
On Jun 28, 2012, at 4:39 AM, Alexandre Oliva aol...@redhat.com wrote:
That still doesn't sound right to me: why should the compiler refrain
from using a perfectly functional linker plugin on the machine where
it's installed (not where
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 11:28 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Alexandre Oliva aol...@redhat.com wrote:
I test i686-linux-gnu in a presumably unusual setting: it's an
x86_64-linux-gnu system, and I've configured the GCC build to use as
builddev tools
[Adding gcc@]
On Jun 26, 2012, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net wrote:
On Jun 26, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
I test i686-linux-gnu in a presumably unusual setting
I like the setup and testing...
This
On Jun 27, 2012, at 2:07 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Why? We don't demand a working plugin. Indeed, we disable the use of
the plugin if we find a linker that doesn't support it. We just don't
account for the possibility of finding a linker that supports plugins,
but that doesn't support the
I test i686-linux-gnu in a presumably unusual setting: it's an
x86_64-linux-gnu system, and I've configured the GCC build to use as
builddev tools wrapper scripts for as, ld, gnatmake and gcc that add
flags that make them default to 32-bit.
This worked fine for regression testing, but I've
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 06:04:54PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
I test i686-linux-gnu in a presumably unusual setting: it's an
x86_64-linux-gnu system, and I've configured the GCC build to use as
builddev tools wrapper scripts for as, ld, gnatmake and gcc that add
flags that make them default
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Alexandre Oliva aol...@redhat.com wrote:
I test i686-linux-gnu in a presumably unusual setting: it's an
x86_64-linux-gnu system, and I've configured the GCC build to use as
builddev tools wrapper scripts for as, ld, gnatmake and gcc that add
flags that make
On Jun 26, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
I test i686-linux-gnu in a presumably unusual setting
I like the setup and testing...
This worked fine for regression testing, but I've recently realized
(with the PR49888/53671 mishap) that I'm getting tons of LTO testsuite
failures
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net wrote:
On Jun 26, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
I test i686-linux-gnu in a presumably unusual setting
I like the setup and testing...
This worked fine for regression testing, but I've recently realized
(with the
20 matches
Mail list logo
