Thanks to all for the helpful explanations. We plan to leave things as
they are. I hope someday we can make some time to do some basic
investigations here.
Bill
On Fri, 2016-04-01 at 00:09 -0500, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
>
> > Hell, even slapping a xfail powerpc*-*-* on
Richard Biener writes:
> Hell, even slapping a xfail powerpc*-*-* on all current ppc FAILs
> would be better
> than simply disabling all of guality for ppc.
FWIW, I agree. While working on the debug early project, I found at
least two legitimate bugs affecting all architectures with guality tes
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 7:16 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:01:20PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>> Again, this is good information to know about. But the "stuff" we were
>> talking about was the failures on powerpc*, and I took what you said to
>> mean that nobody was workin
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:34:17AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
>> On Mar 29, 2016, at 7:45 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> > We have no plans to make code generation a slave to the testsuite.
>> > The testsuite is a tool, successful results from
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:34:17AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2016, at 7:45 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > We have no plans to make code generation a slave to the testsuite.
> > The testsuite is a tool, successful results from the testsuite is not
> > a goal unto itself.
> >
> > This pa
On Mar 29, 2016, at 7:45 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> We have no plans to make code generation a slave to the testsuite.
> The testsuite is a tool, successful results from the testsuite is not
> a goal unto itself.
>
> This patch is okay.
We look forward to the day when someone can find the time
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:01:20PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> Again, this is good information to know about. But the "stuff" we were
> talking about was the failures on powerpc*, and I took what you said to
> mean that nobody was working on those. It sounds like you're saying
> that the communi
Hi Jakub,
Thanks for the information; I really do appreciate it!
On Tue, 2016-03-29 at 17:33 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 08:19:39AM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > When you say that "the debug info quality is already pretty bad on
> > powerpc*," do you mean that it is kno
On March 29, 2016 4:45:44 PM GMT+02:00, David Edelsohn
wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Bill Schmidt
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> For a long time we've had hundreds of failing guality tests. These
>> failures don't seem to have any correlation with gdb functionality
>for
>> POWER, which is work
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For a long time we've had hundreds of failing guality tests. These
> failures don't seem to have any correlation with gdb functionality for
> POWER, which is working fine. At this point the value of these tests to
> us seems question
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
> Hi Jakub,
>
> On Tue, 2016-03-29 at 08:53 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 07:38:46PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>> > For a long time we've had hundreds of failing guality tests. These
>> > failures don't seem to have an
Hi Jakub,
On Tue, 2016-03-29 at 08:53 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 07:38:46PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > For a long time we've had hundreds of failing guality tests. These
> > failures don't seem to have any correlation with gdb functionality for
> > POWER, which is w
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> For guality, the most effective test for regressions is simply always
> running contrib/test_summary after all your bootstraps and then just
> diffing up that against the same from earlier bootstrap.
Or use contrib/compare_tests.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs,
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 07:38:46PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> For a long time we've had hundreds of failing guality tests. These
> failures don't seem to have any correlation with gdb functionality for
> POWER, which is working fine. At this point the value of these tests to
> us seems question
On Mar 28, 2016, at 5:38 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> For a long time we've had hundreds of failing guality tests. These
> failures don't seem to have any correlation with gdb functionality for
> POWER, which is working fine.
> Verified to remove hundreds of failure messages on
> powerpc64le-unknow
15 matches
Mail list logo
