Hi,
On 17 November 2016 at 11:45, Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@foss.arm.com> wrote: > > On 17/11/16 10:31, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> >> Hi Kyrill, >> >> On 17/11/16 10:11, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: >>> >>> Hi Andre, >>> >>> On 09/11/16 10:00, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >>>> >>>> Tested the series by bootstrapping arm-none-linux-gnuabihf and found no >>>> regressions, also did a normal build for arm-none-eabi and ran the >>>> acle.exp tests for a Cortex-M3. >>> >>> Can you please also do a full testsuite run on arm-none-linux-gnueabihf. >>> Patches have to be tested by the whole testsuite. >> >> That's what I have done and meant to say with "Tested the series by >> bootstrapping arm-none-linux-gnuabihf and found no regressions". I >> compared gcc/g++/libstdc++ tests on a bootstrap with and without the >> patches. > > > Ah ok, great. > >> >> I'm happy to rerun the tests after a rebase when the patches get approved. > FWIW, I ran a validation with the 6 patches applied, and saw no regression. Given the large number of new tests, I didn't check the full details. If you want to check that each configuration has the PASSes you expect, you can have a look at: http://people.linaro.org/~christophe.lyon/cross-validation/gcc-test-patches/242581-acle/report-build-info.html Thanks, Christophe > > Thanks, > Kyrill > >> >> Cheers, >> Andre > >
