On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> 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).
Our case is sim
On Wed, 5 Feb 2014, Jeff Law wrote:
> I suspect most folks have a site.exp they drop somewhere and explicitly call
> runtest --tool gcc
* Create site.exp (based on what GCC's makefiles do for build-tree
testing). Note that in some cases you may need different contents for
different testsu
On 02/05/14 15:10, Matthias Klose wrote:
Am 04.02.2014 03:14, schrieb Mike Stump:
On Feb 3, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2014, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
If t
Am 04.02.2014 03:14, schrieb Mike Stump:
> On Feb 3, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Feb 2014, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> If the presence of the build
On Feb 3, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2014, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>>
If the presence of the build
tree makes writing some tests significant
On Mon, 3 Feb 2014, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> >
> >> If the presence of the build
> >> tree makes writing some tests significantly simpler, I think that is
> >> OK.
> >
> > I would li
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Ian Lance Taylor 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 f
On 02/03/14 12:15, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 11:11:31AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
We test GCC without access to the build tree (we only have convenient access to
install and source trees).
Building libgomp.c/affi
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 11:11:31AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Paul Pluzhnikov
> wrote:
> >
> > We test GCC without access to the build tree (we only have convenient
> > access to
> > install and source trees).
> >
> > Building libgomp.c/affinity-1.c and lib
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Ian Lance Taylor 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.
Interna
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
>
> We test GCC without access to the build tree (we only have convenient access
> to
> install and source trees).
>
> Building libgomp.c/affinity-1.c and libgomp.c++/affinity-1.C fails in
> such testing, because of '#include "config.h"' whi
Greetings,
We test GCC without access to the build tree (we only have convenient access to
install and source trees).
Building libgomp.c/affinity-1.c and libgomp.c++/affinity-1.C fails in
such testing, because of '#include "config.h"' which is nowhere to be
found.
Is that a bug?
Should I open a
12 matches
Mail list logo
