[proposal/testsuite] require build == host

[Michael Chastain]

Felix Lee <felix.1@canids.net> wrote:
lee> I remember running build!=host tests in some situations, but I
lee> don't remember enough detail to demonstrate that it was really
lee> necessary.

I won't say "show that there's no other way to get the same effect".
Because when one is trying to put a testbed together from several
components, it's much easier when more of the components are more
flexible.

If you've used build != host in the past, that's valid.

My question is: how far in the past?  Because it seems like
everything these days is gdb remote protocol.

lee> the issue isn't memory footprint, it's stuff like OS environment.
lee> one thing that comes to mind: expect won't work if you don't have
lee> ptys, but gdb works fine without ptys.  also, BeOS apparently has
lee> a weird select() call that's hard to work with.

If build != host, then the host does not have to run expect.
But the host does have to run some kind of network server
like telnet/ftp or rlogin/rcp (or kermit or tip or ...)

It's a tradeoff.  The situation right now is that there are 1-2 dozen
scripts which do not work in a build != host environment, and they've
been that way for several years.  I can spend time fixing these and
actually running some build != host test runs.  Or we can change the
policy so that build != host is not supported.

Hmmm, I just checked Dan Kegel's crosstool FAQ, and he wrote a
section on build != host testing for gcc, last revised
2004-01-04.  This argues against removing build != host from gdb.

Michael C