On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Mark Mitchell wrote: > > I object. > > Me too. > > I'm a big proponent of testing, but I do think there should be some > bang/buck tradeoff. (For example, we have tests in the GCC testsuite > that take several minutes to run -- but never fail. I doubt these tests > are actually buying us a factor of several hundred more quality quanta > over the average test.) Machine time is cheap, but human time is not, > and I know that for me the testsuite-latency time is a factor in how > many patches I can write, because I'm not great at keeping track of > multiple patches at once. > Mark Mitchell
I can sympathize with that, I have a slightly different problem. Right now there are some java test that time-out 10x on solaris2.10. I run four passes of the testsuite with different options each time, so that 40 timeouts. (This is without any extra RTL checking turned on.) At 5 minutes each it adds up fast! http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-11/msg00294.html Maybe in another six years cpu improvements will outpace gcc bootstrap times enough to reconsider. In the mean time, I would encourage anyone patching middle-end RTL files and especially backend target files to try using RTL checking to validate their patches if they have enough spare cpu and time. --Kaveh -- Kaveh R. Ghazi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
