On 9 September 2014 00:25, Bastien Chevreux <b...@chevreux.org> wrote: > On 08 Sep 2014, at 23:07 , Marko Lindqvist <cazf...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I'm ginving theoretical autoconf-way answer. I admit that in some >> individual cases the Right Thing(tm) might be too much work in >> practice, and the "check version number" hack is justifiable. > > Indeed it may be. Delivering the source code with a 352 MiB (compressed, some > 2.4 GiB uncompressed) test data set that triggers the error and which > computes 17 hrs (on faster faster machines with Xeons and north of 64 GiB RAM > (your mileage may vary)) until the result can be checked against the known > good outcome in autoconf falls into this category I suppose. I’m not sure the > Debian guys would approve having this in their weekly builds :-) > > B.
Maybe gcc regression test set has a bit lighter test added against the bug in question, added when it was fixed. - ML _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
