On 29/11/16 10:35, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
On 21/11/16 08:42, Christophe Lyon wrote:
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
Hi Andre,
Ping. (For the patch series).
Have you seen my review at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg01778.html ?
It might require some minor rework of some parts of the series.
Thanks,
Kyrill
