Re: testing packages at build
On 09-Oct-03, 14:48 (CDT), Steve Greenland <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> GCC may, in fact, be more likely to have optimization bugs than, say,
> the old DEC Fortran compiler.
Looking at the other replies, I see this turns out to be the case, esp.
on non-x86. So apparently it falls into the
>  Well, there were certainly a few compilers whose optimizer *was*
> broken, in which case we soon learned to not turn it on except for
> amusement value.
category, in which case the answer is *still* not "recompile programs
that fail there tests with -O0", but instead "disable the broken
optimizer (or optimizations, if that can be done)". Otherwise, you
blindly release broken packages when the tests don't trigger the
problem, or when there are no tests.
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net