On 03 May 2007 03:41, Aaron Gray wrote:
Various people run the testsuite on cygwin every now and again; check
the
gcc-testresults@ mailinglist archive.
Yes, Tim has allready run it :-
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-04/msg01540.html
I haven't done one for weeks now...
Aaron Gray wrote:
Any clue as to how long it will run for ?
Depends on how many languages you enabled. In my case:
c,c++,fortran,objc
Bootstrapping the compilers took about 6 hours, and the testsuite took
about 60.
Okay, I have just done c, and c++.
Have you got testsuite results, have y
On 03 May 2007 03:41, Aaron Gray wrote:
>> Various people run the testsuite on cygwin every now and again; check the
>> gcc-testresults@ mailinglist archive.
>
> Yes, Tim has allready run it :-
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-04/msg01540.html
>
I haven't done one for
Aaron Gray wrote:
> Oh 'make check' is the test suite, did not realize that. I thought it was a
> separate CVS branch/download.
>
> Anyway its been running ten hours now and got to struct-layout-1.
>
> Any clue as to how long it will run for ?
The last time I built 4.3 (couple of months ago) wi
Various people run the testsuite on cygwin every now and again; check the
gcc-testresults@ mailinglist archive.
Yes, Tim has allready run it :-
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-04/msg01540.html
Aaron
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem
On 03 May 2007 02:43, Aaron Gray wrote:
>>> Any clue as to how long it will run for ?
>>
>> Depends on how many languages you enabled. In my case:
>>
>> c,c++,fortran,objc
>>
>> Bootstrapping the compilers took about 6 hours, and the testsuite took
>> about 60.
>
> Okay, I have just done c, a
On 03 May 2007 01:18, Aaron Gray wrote:
>>> Aaron Gray wrote:
>>>
I tried doing 'make check' but it needed autogen which does not build on
Cygwin apparently :(
>>>
>>> That's just the fixincludes dir. It's not important. This is why the
>>> instructions tell you to run "make -k check
Any clue as to how long it will run for ?
Depends on how many languages you enabled. In my case:
c,c++,fortran,objc
Bootstrapping the compilers took about 6 hours, and the testsuite took
about 60.
Okay, I have just done c, and c++.
Have you got testsuite results, have you put them online
Has anyone already run the testsuite on GCC-4.3-20070427/Cygwin latest
snapshot ?
Got the following so far :-
Running /usr/src/gcc-4.3-20070427/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/dg.exp ...
FAIL: gcc.dg/20021014-1.c (test for excess errors)
WARNING: gcc.dg/20021014-1.c compilation failed to produce executabl
Aaron Gray wrote:
Any clue as to how long it will run for ?
Depends on how many languages you enabled. In my case:
c,c++,fortran,objc
Bootstrapping the compilers took about 6 hours, and the testsuite took
about 60.
--
Chuck
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-
Aaron Gray wrote:
I tried doing 'make check' but it needed autogen which does not build on
Cygwin apparently :(
That's just the fixincludes dir. It's not important. This is why the
instructions tell you to run "make -k check".
Okay I will try that.
Oh 'make check' is the test suite, did
Aaron Gray wrote:
I tried doing 'make check' but it needed autogen which does not build on
Cygwin apparently :(
That's just the fixincludes dir. It's not important. This is why the
instructions tell you to run "make -k check".
Okay I will try that.
And autogen does build on Cygwin.
Rig
Aaron Gray wrote:
> I tried doing 'make check' but it needed autogen which does not build on
> Cygwin apparently :(
That's just the fixincludes dir. It's not important. This is why the
instructions tell you to run "make -k check".
And autogen does build on Cygwin.
Brian
--
Unsubscribe info:
On 02 May 2007 14:10, Aaron Gray wrote:
>> On 02 May 2007 13:23, Aaron Gray wrote:
>>
>>> I have a working GCC-4.3-20070427 on latest Cygwin snapshot. GCC took 8
>>> hours to build !
>>
>> If you think that's slow, try running the full testsuite!
>
> I tried doing 'make check' but it needed a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 02 May 2007 13:23, Aaron Gray wrote:
I have a working GCC-4.3-20070427 on latest Cygwin snapshot. GCC took 8
hours to build !
If you think that's slow, try running the full testsuite!
I tried doing 'make check' but it needed autogen which does not build on
Cyg
On 02 May 2007 13:23, Aaron Gray wrote:
I have a working GCC-4.3-20070427 on latest Cygwin snapshot. GCC took 8
hours to build !
If you think that's slow, try running the full testsuite!
I tried doing 'make check' but it needed autogen which does not build on
Cygwin apparently :(
I have
On 02 May 2007 13:23, Aaron Gray wrote:
> I have a working GCC-4.3-20070427 on latest Cygwin snapshot. GCC took 8
> hours to build !
If you think that's slow, try running the full testsuite!
Anyway, well done!
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today
--
Unsub
I have a working GCC-4.3-20070427 on latest Cygwin snapshot. GCC took 8
hours to build !
Thanks alot,
Aaron
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:
Dave Korn wrote:
> If you examine the wording carefully, you can infer that doing "cvs up" from
> toplevel without the -d option does not preclude using -d at levels below
> that
Well, depends. I have a line "update -dP" in my ~/.cvsrc. :-)
> Hmmm, I can't think off the top of my head
On 02 May 2007 15:59, Brian Dessent wrote:
> Dave Korn wrote:
>
>>> that are shared across gcc/binutils/gdb/sim/etc. If you later do "cvs
>>> up" from the toplevel you'll accidently get the entire "src" tree
>>
>> No, you won't, unless you deliberately add the '-d' option.
>
> Well sure, but
Dave Korn wrote:
> > that are shared across gcc/binutils/gdb/sim/etc. If you later do "cvs
> > up" from the toplevel you'll accidently get the entire "src" tree
>
> No, you won't, unless you deliberately add the '-d' option.
Well sure, but then when someone checks in a change that involves
re
On 01 May 2007 23:48, Brian Dessent wrote:
> Aaron Gray wrote:
>
>> Thank you. I am a bit unsure of where abouts (what directory) do you
>> install the snapshot ?
>
> Again, this has nothing to do with gcc, take it the Cygwin list.
It would be as well to snip the gcc list from the Cc line w
Aaron Gray wrote:
Thank you. I am a bit unsure of where abouts (what directory) do you
install
the snapshot ?
Again, this has nothing to do with gcc, take it the Cygwin list. If you
are using the full snapshots (cygwin-inst-$date.tar.bz2) they should be
unpacked in the root (/). The other t
23 matches
Mail list logo
