From owner-freebsd-ports  Tue Aug 28  9:39:34 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from ipcard.iptcom.net (ipcard.iptcom.net [212.9.224.5])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 9601337B403; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 09:39:24 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from max@vega.com)
Received: from vega.vega.com (root@dialup3-29.iptelecom.net.ua [212.9.226.157])
	by ipcard.iptcom.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA91347;
	Tue, 28 Aug 2001 19:39:20 +0300 (EEST)
	(envelope-from max@vega.com)
Received: (from max@localhost)
	by vega.vega.com (8.11.4/8.11.3) id f7SGdJk57229;
	Tue, 28 Aug 2001 19:39:19 +0300 (EEST)
	(envelope-from sobomax@FreeBSD.org)
From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG>
Message-Id: <200108281639.f7SGdJk57229@vega.vega.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: on the merits of post-build testing
To: mi@aldan.algebra.com (Mikhail Teterin)
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 19:39:19 +0300 (EEST)
Cc: sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <no.id> from "Mikhail Teterin" at Aug 28, 2001 11:53:10 AM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL5]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-ports.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-ports>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-ports>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

> 
> 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