gnu-arch-users
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline]


From: Tom Lord
Subject: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline]
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:46:21 -0700 (PDT)

Fairly recently we chatted on the list about the GCC commit rate (or,
more precisely, we talked about about very high commit rates generally
but in a thread that made it obvious we were thinking about GCC).

Some would say, of _any_ high commit rate --- any rate too high for
developers to keep up-to-date with --- "Hey, use branches more.  Slow
down there, partner."   They would be right, 90% of the time.

In this forward, though, is evidence that GCC is in the 10%:

Nobody cares that you can't really keep up with GCC mainline.   
You can't "keep up" -- but you can do what Mark is doing here.   And
that's the whole point of an integration branch.

-t


------- Start of forwarded message -------
Mailing-List: contact address@hidden; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:address@hidden>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:address@hidden>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: address@hidden
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 15:19:43 -0700
From: Mark Mitchell <address@hidden>
Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
To: address@hidden
Subject: Regressions on mainline
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63-42mail_2004060101 (2004-01-11) on 
        mail.42inc.com
X-Spam-DCC: MessageCare: mail 1108; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.0 required=4.5 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham 
        version=2.63-42mail_2004060101
X-42email-MailScanner-Information: Please contact 
http://www.42inc.com/support.html for more information.
X-42email-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-UIDL: ff73ba41ea54167da3f3a0b2a63c53c6


On the mainline, I'm seeing failures with stack-1.C, gcov-1.C, and warn7.C.

Since we have a policy of not checking things without running tests, and 
yet I'm seeing these failures on multiple platforms, I'm perplexed as to 
what has transpired.

Would someone please explain why these tests are failing and what is 
being done to fix them?

- -- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
(916) 791-8304
address@hidden
------- End of forwarded message -------




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]