On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 09:02:27AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Bernd Schmidt <bschm...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > On 06/09/2016 02:21 PM, David Edelsohn wrote: >> > >> >> This is a completely unacceptable way to introduce these self-tests. >> >> Please stop adding self-tests that only are tested on x86 Linux and >> >> cause bootstrap failures. >> > >> > >> > We have no requirement to test patches on more than one target. I think >> > your >> > request is unreasonable. >> >> Bernd, >> >> This is a completely inappropriate response. GCC must maintain a >> stable, working development base on which developers can work. GCC >> specifically supports multiple architectures and targets. >> >> GCC is not your personal kingdom and playground. > > For patches that the submitter can easily expect problems on some > architectures, testing there is desirable, but we certainly don't and should > not require every single generic code change to be expected on all supported > targets, not even on primary targets. That just doesn't scale, various > people submit multiple changes a day and having to wait days or weeks before > testing is over is unacceptable. > > You've reported a problem, David is going to look at it and fix. > I don't see why it would be unacceptable to add further self-tests, as long > as there is nothing in them where one should expect issues on targets other > than the tested one.
I didn't request that every patch be tested on every architecture. Please don't play a rhetorical game of arguing against the strawman that you created. The self-tests specifically abort the build and break bootstrap upon failure. Most other changes that inadvertently have bugs or tickle a latent issue in a target will introduce some additional testsuite failures, not a bootstrap failure. x86 developers seem to get quite annoyed when a patch causes a bootstrap failure for an x86 configuration. Second, all of the large changes that may have unknown effects on various targets have been tested extensively on multiple architectures, as have most global optimization changes. It may not be required, but it generally has been considered "good form" and has been a stipulation of patch approval by some reviewers. It would be very unfortunate for GCC to lower the bar for patches by some developers and not others. Thanks, David
