On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 10:22:41AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote: > > > > > 1) At no point in time did I advocate no testing of the output > > binaries. Regardless of whether those binaries are produced via a > > native build or a cross build. Testing the binaries is a _good_ thing > > and should be done. The process of building the binaries really does > > not exercise much of the system. > > You are *so* wrong. make build is an outstanding way to stress a system.
Did I say stress anywhere? I said test. Sure, doing a build will stress the machine but all it really tests is that the tool chain is functional and that the kernel is functional enough to handle the build. When I said "testing the output binaries" I was meaning that the actual output from the build is tested, just running make in the source tree will not tell you if /usr/bin/ls is going to blow up on invocation or not due to some odd bug. > > Why? no one in OpenBSD gives a crap. Haven't you read the previous postings? > Yes, I read them. There seems to be a presumption that cross building will result in badly generated code that does not happen when a native build is done which is used as justification for avoiding a cross build system. I seriously doubt the problems are that endemic in the cross build code as being stated. I reiterate... whatever... the lack of cross build capability affects developers more than anyone else. -- Brett Lymn
