Thanks to all for the helpful explanations. We plan to leave things as
they are. I hope someday we can make some time to do some basic
investigations here.
Bill
On Fri, 2016-04-01 at 00:09 -0500, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
>
> > Hell, even slapping a xfail powerpc*-*-* on
Richard Biener writes:
> Hell, even slapping a xfail powerpc*-*-* on all current ppc FAILs
> would be better
> than simply disabling all of guality for ppc.
FWIW, I agree. While working on the debug early project, I found at
least two legitimate bugs affecting all architectures with guality tes
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 7:16 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:01:20PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>> Again, this is good information to know about. But the "stuff" we were
>> talking about was the failures on powerpc*, and I took what you said to
>> mean that nobody was workin
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:34:17AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
>> On Mar 29, 2016, at 7:45 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> > We have no plans to make code generation a slave to the testsuite.
>> > The testsuite is a tool, successful results from
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:34:17AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2016, at 7:45 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > We have no plans to make code generation a slave to the testsuite.
> > The testsuite is a tool, successful results from the testsuite is not
> > a goal unto itself.
> >
> > This pa
On Mar 29, 2016, at 7:45 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> We have no plans to make code generation a slave to the testsuite.
> The testsuite is a tool, successful results from the testsuite is not
> a goal unto itself.
>
> This patch is okay.
We look forward to the day when someone can find the time
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:01:20PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> Again, this is good information to know about. But the "stuff" we were
> talking about was the failures on powerpc*, and I took what you said to
> mean that nobody was working on those. It sounds like you're saying
> that the communi
Hi Jakub,
Thanks for the information; I really do appreciate it!
On Tue, 2016-03-29 at 17:33 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 08:19:39AM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > When you say that "the debug info quality is already pretty bad on
> > powerpc*," do you mean that it is kno
On March 29, 2016 4:45:44 PM GMT+02:00, David Edelsohn
wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Bill Schmidt
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> For a long time we've had hundreds of failing guality tests. These
>> failures don't seem to have any correlation with gdb functionality
>for
>> POWER, which is work
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For a long time we've had hundreds of failing guality tests. These
> failures don't seem to have any correlation with gdb functionality for
> POWER, which is working fine. At this point the value of these tests to
> us seems question
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
> Hi Jakub,
>
> On Tue, 2016-03-29 at 08:53 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 07:38:46PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>> > For a long time we've had hundreds of failing guality tests. These
>> > failures don't seem to have an
Hi Jakub,
On Tue, 2016-03-29 at 08:53 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 07:38:46PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > For a long time we've had hundreds of failing guality tests. These
> > failures don't seem to have any correlation with gdb functionality for
> > POWER, which is w
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> For guality, the most effective test for regressions is simply always
> running contrib/test_summary after all your bootstraps and then just
> diffing up that against the same from earlier bootstrap.
Or use contrib/compare_tests.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs,
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 07:38:46PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> For a long time we've had hundreds of failing guality tests. These
> failures don't seem to have any correlation with gdb functionality for
> POWER, which is working fine. At this point the value of these tests to
> us seems question
On Mar 28, 2016, at 5:38 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> For a long time we've had hundreds of failing guality tests. These
> failures don't seem to have any correlation with gdb functionality for
> POWER, which is working fine.
> Verified to remove hundreds of failure messages on
> powerpc64le-unknow
Hi,
For a long time we've had hundreds of failing guality tests. These
failures don't seem to have any correlation with gdb functionality for
POWER, which is working fine. At this point the value of these tests to
us seems questionable. Fixing these is such low priority that it is
unlikely we w
16 matches
Mail list logo
