Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 11:53:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com> To: sobomax@FreeBSD.org Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: RFC: on the merits of post-build testing Message-ID: <200108281553.f7SFrBI06527@aldan.algebra.com> In-Reply-To: <3B8B5354.EE77877D@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 28 Aug, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> That are a very interesting arguments, but the real point is that in
> 99.9% of cases running tests wouldn't cause anything but useless waste
> of CPU time. From the remainder 0.09% is associated with people adding
> unsupported optimisation levels into CFLAGS (they deserve punishment
> for that anyway) and 0.01% with people running strange hardware (i.e.
> Alphas and faulty x86).
Well, Maxim's opposition is the only one I knew about before. So well,
in fact, I addressed his point first in my original posting:
>> Why some dislike it:
>>
>> * it is a waste of the CPU time
>>
>> well, so is checking for the result of the malloc() :-) So is not
>> compiling your kernel with -fomit-frame-pointer. I think, that
>> majority of those concerned about the CPU time will use the
>> precompiled packages. Testing time is, usually, only a fraction of
>> the build time.
Anybody else?
--
|\__-----__/|
_____/ ::::: :::\_____
'__--( ::::::::..::)--__` -mi
If you have a / _- \/ :::::::\/ -_
serious knowledge / / :. .::::\ \
about computers -- | ::::::::::::| Ok, let's say you broke
keep it in a secret! _|/ ::::____::\|_ the wall with your head
"Rules of dating", / /:::::/:_::\::\:.\ What are you going to
'Playboy', ? 1994 | :| ..:(_/ \::|::|::| do in the next cell?
| :|:::::. ::|: |::|.:| Stanislaw J. Lec
\ |:: :::_/::/: :|:/
((___\____\____/___/___))
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200108281553.f7SFrBI06527>