On 10/7/14 1:29, Mike Stump wrote: > On Oct 6, 2014, at 8:36 AM, Chen Gang <gang.chen.5...@gmail.com> wrote: >> For me, "make -k check" is suitable for one sub-system (e.g. for cross >> building, and mainly focus on gcc), but not for global check (full >> non-cross building check): > > In our world, there is no sub-system, so, talk of such is outside the scope > of gcc. > > Let me repeat what he said differently. > > You have two choices, fixing the port so that there are no unexpected > failures or running check with -k. > > I’d like to get to the point where all primary/secondary platforms can use > make check directly, we’re not there yet. > > The idea is that the single return value tells if if the suite passed or not. > This is an absolute measure, that, when achieved means one never has to > compare previous/present results, just know that the suite passed. Sometimes > simple is better. > >> - "make check" is the standard check for global, > > No sub-system, no global. >
Theoretically, in each system (include gcc), always can be separated into several 'sub-systems', and then 'global' means the system itself. In our case, we say let 'global' pass checking means let gcc, gfortran, g++, libjava ... all pass checking. But for mainly focus on constructing environments, I will try to use upstream glibc instead of Darwin glibc: - If fix Throw_2, we know it is environments construction issue. - Else, I shall skip it (since "make -k check" should be OK). And after finish testsuite under Darwin, within this month, I shall try to find and send a patch for gcc, and pass testsuite under Darwin (it seems it is not quite difficult to me). Thanks -- Chen Gang Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed
