[M-f-t set, I think this is offtopic for -release.] Matthew Palmer wrote: [snip] > > > Common sense would suggest that tests that have to be analysed by a human > > > being after every test run aren't particularly useful. > > > > Actually, skimming over the dozen or so failing ones, and recognizing > > they are the same as in the last run isn't that hard. > > But what does that get you? Just that GCC is as broken (or not) as it was > previously. It doesn't actually tell you whether the problems reported are > spurious or serious, does it? Well, some knowledge about gcc is reqired to interpret the failures. The testsuite provides only some pointers. Thiemo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature