> Hi,
>
> I just joined this list, I'm still checking out the CVS tree and I had two
> questions about testing :
> Are you more interested in tests from a specific branch (in this case, which
> one?)?
> Definitely keep things simple by using egcs or is there interest in testing
> against gcc-2.96 (I always use the latest one from rawhide, gcc-2.96-79 at
> the moment)? I know this one is mentioned on the faq. (Just wanted to know if
>
> there is any interest)
Compilers:
Last time anything happened on this front was when I sent a patch to Alan
Cox and mentioned that xfs did not build with gcc-2.96-69, he passed this
on to Jakob Jelinek at RedHat, he duplicated the problem and was working
on it. This was about 10 days ago I have not heard any more since then.
So basically, we know that 2.96-69 does not build xfs, I worked around
these problems, and got a non-booting kernel. You could try the latest
rawhide compiler if you want, but I would not hold out too much hope at
the moment.
Tree branches:
On which xfs to try out, use the development cvs tree if you want the latest
changes, the 1.0 tree (not sure of the name) should be a more stable leg and
boring leg. We are interested in test results from either. If you do find
a problem, please report as much info as you have on hardware used, which
tree the code came from and what caused the problem - is it repeatable etc.
Thanks
Steve
>
> Ciao,
> Michele
> --
> Computers are like airconditioners:
> They stop working properly if you open windows.
|