This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: (link to) gcc-testsuite results for cygming-special 3.3.1
- From: Danny Smith <danny_r_smith_2001 at yahoo dot co dot nz>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 06:54:45 +1000 (EST)
- Subject: Re: (link to) gcc-testsuite results for cygming-special 3.3.1
> From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-rcm at cygwin dot com>
> To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 11:33:47 -0400
> On Sun, Sep 14, 2003 at 01:09:08AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
> >Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 05:48:11PM -0700, Tim Prince wrote:
> Lets be clear here: I do run tests on gcc before releasing. I'm not
> particularly interested in having someone else run test releases,
> especially ones with no context. Do the tests indicate a regression
> from the last release? Are they better or are they worse?
> Test results without history, unless they show massive failures, are
> pretty much worthless.
The published test results are also a bit misleading. The testsuite used is from
Many of the tests that failed are new tests -- ie., they (and the bugfixes they test)
do not exist in the gcc-3_3_1-release branch. My results on cygwin build
(same source as the gcc-3.3.1 (cygming-special) with the contemporary testsuite) had
far fewer failures. Also going through the failures, several are due to 'bugs' in the
testsuite itself (wrong options for cygwin or problems with degagnu).
As Chris points out, without some context, the testsuite results are not very useful, but
it is good to know that someone is testing with the GCC testsuite too.
http://search.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Search
- Looking for more? Try the new Yahoo! Search
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html