1 |
On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 14:20:41 -0700 |
2 |
Daniel Campbell <zlg@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On 08/18/2016 06:21 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
5 |
> > On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 08:13:14 -0400 |
6 |
> > Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> >> If you just check your packages occassionally to make sure they |
9 |
> >> build with gold it completely achieves the goal, and it will |
10 |
> >> actually result in fewer bugs using the non-gold linker as well. |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > That's what a tinderbox is for. The only QA problem I see here is |
14 |
> > that QA doesn't automate that kind of checks anymore since Diego |
15 |
> > left. Maybe QA should ask Toralf to run a ld.gold tinderbox and |
16 |
> > avoid asking people to randomly test random packages ? |
17 |
> > |
18 |
> I dunno, if testing packages that one maintains is as simple as |
19 |
> reconfiguring a package, testing, and switching back then I don't |
20 |
> think it's unreasonable to ask us to test our own packages. We're |
21 |
> supposed to do that already, and for packages whose dependencies |
22 |
> aren't 100% hashed out, it can help us figure out what the real deps |
23 |
> are. |
24 |
|
25 |
|
26 |
test against... all linkers, all compilers, all libcs, all kernels, all |
27 |
userlannds, all useflags, ... ? :) |
28 |
|
29 |
|
30 |
by all means, please do it, but there are things machines are better |
31 |
at, like ensuring all packages have been tested against gold linker and |
32 |
every failure has been reported |