Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 19:39:19 +0300 (EEST) From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG> To: mi@aldan.algebra.com (Mikhail Teterin) Cc: sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RFC: on the merits of post-build testing Message-ID: <200108281639.f7SGdJk57229@vega.vega.com> In-Reply-To: <no.id> from "Mikhail Teterin" at Aug 28, 2001 11:53:10 AM
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: No you did not, at least completely. The main point is not waste of CPU cycles per se, but pointless waste of CPU cycles *and* pointless waste of developers' time. -Maxim > >> 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. 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?200108281639.f7SGdJk57229>