On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 12:36:19PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >For example, several targets would build/bootstrap and regtest fine with
> > reload's find_valid_class() implemented as gcc_abort(). And guess what,
> > there seems to
DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > tm.texi does not require that NO_REGS == 0,
>
> Um, yes? Unless you're assuming that the user could do NO_REGS=5 or
> something in the enum, so that the enum starts with something other
> than zero? If tha
Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> tm.texi does not require that NO_REGS == 0,
Um, yes? Unless you're assuming that the user could do NO_REGS=5 or
something in the enum, so that the enum starts with something other
than zero? If that's what you're thinking, perhaps we should change
Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 02:29:26PM +1000, Ben Elliston wrote:
> >
> > If you build the compiler with coverage instrumentation and run the
> > testsuite, you might get a shock. It's not as well tested as you might
> > think.
>
>For examp
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 02:29:26PM +1000, Ben Elliston wrote:
>
> If you build the compiler with coverage instrumentation and run the
> testsuite, you might get a shock. It's not as well tested as you might
> think.
For example, several targets would build/bootstrap and regtest fine with
relo
On Wed, 2007-07-25 at 07:05 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> > If you build the compiler with coverage instrumentation and run the
> > testsuite, you might get a shock. It's not as well tested as you might
> > think.
>
> If it gave anyone a shock to find out that the test suite did not
> provide 100
Joe Buck wrote:
Right. However, some coverage-oriented methodologies explicitly mark code
that is expected to be unreachable, and produce unit tests to exercise at
least some of the defensive code that no longer gets run by the compiler
as a whole. If any volunteers would like to take on the j
Ben Elliston wrote:
> >If you build the compiler with coverage instrumentation and run the
> >testsuite, you might get a shock. It's not as well tested as you might
> >think.
>
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 07:05:36AM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> If it gave anyone a shock to find out that the test sui
Ben Elliston wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 10:48 +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
GCC is thoroughly tested. None the less, there is always room for
improvement, so if you have time to implement your ideas or write
documentation, you are welcome to contribute.
If you build the compiler with
Hi:
Thank you very much for your suggestion.
2007/7/24, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 24 July 2007 07:42, ?? wrote:
>
> > Hi:
> >I know GCC is a wonderful compiler collection. I like it and trust
> > it. But, I can't find any formal docs about Testing GCC, both unit
> > testing and
On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 10:48 +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> GCC is thoroughly tested. None the less, there is always room for
> improvement, so if you have time to implement your ideas or write
> documentation, you are welcome to contribute.
If you build the compiler with coverage instrumenta
On 24 July 2007 07:42, ?? wrote:
> Hi:
>I know GCC is a wonderful compiler collection. I like it and trust
> it. But, I can't find any formal docs about Testing GCC, both unit
> testing and integrat testing. I think, as a software, GCC should be
> tested and own a test report.
>
>Can some
Hi,
>I know GCC is a wonderful compiler collection. I like it and trust
> it.
That sounds dramatic. Never trust a compiler if you want to test it :)
> But, I can't find any formal docs about Testing GCC, both unit
> testing and integrat testing. I think, as a software, GCC should be
>
On 24/07/07, 张飞 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi:
I know GCC is a wonderful compiler collection. I like it and trust
it. But, I can't find any formal docs about Testing GCC, both unit
testing and integrat testing. I think, as a software, GCC should be
tested and own a test report.
http://www.g
Hi:
I know GCC is a wonderful compiler collection. I like it and trust
it. But, I can't find any formal docs about Testing GCC, both unit
testing and integrat testing. I think, as a software, GCC should be
tested and own a test report.
Can someone give me some infomation about how the GCC wo
15 matches
Mail list logo
