This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Wednesday 09 January 2013 01:18:55 Allan McRae wrote: > On 09/01/13 14:44, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > > Which leave us with two courses of action: > > > > (1) Don't support building with gold. > > > > Given that there are regressions we should not > > support building with gold at all. Knowing that > > downstream distributions and users might build > > glibc with gold and ignore the testsuite results. > > > > (2) Support building with gold. > > > > Enable building with gold in order to help > > minimize the work required to test building with > > gold. Downstream distributions can switch the system > > default to gold and start diagnosing failures. As > > a counter-point to (1) Debian's build system will > > fail a package build if regressions are detected in > > the testsuite (prevents a gold build from being uploaded). > > > > I'm inclined strongly to (2) because it enables developer > > choice and makes it easier to test "new" technology. > > I also favour (2). Any downstream distribution or user not checking the > testsuite results is asking for breakage... > > One option is to add an AC_WARNING message when GOLD is selected saying > that GOLD support is experimental until the testsuite passes completely. we could put it behind $enable_sanity until the regressions are sorted out. i'm not sure an AC_WARNING is sufficient. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |