On 11/29/18 12:35 AM, Brooks Moses wrote:
> Fair enough -- but having done cross-testing on both GCC (with
> DejaGnu) and glibc (without it), and having also done some substantial
> porting work to get the GCC testing working with our systems, I have
I'll note that GCC testing is much easier then GDB testing. :-) Much
of the difficulty in DejaGnu was to support interactive applications.
That and Canadian cross testing of remote windows based cross compilers.
> One of the interesting things I learned from that is that I actually
> ended up doing almost no porting of the DejaGnu code itself; the
> porting was almost all of functionality provided by the "library" code
> that the GCC testsuites add on top of it. Admittedly, that's because
> the "figure out which tests to run" and "run a test on this kind of
> machine" functionality is provided by our build-farm infrastructure,
> but I still found it noteworthy how separable the pieces were.
Well, that was actually a design decision. :-) DejaGnu is a framework
for creating a testsuite, the runtest program is just a utility. The
last build farm I built just ran the entire testsuite for each patch to
make sure we didn't break anything, so pretty simple.
- rob -
_______________________________________________
DejaGnu mailing list
DejaGnu@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/dejagnu
