Re: Compiler for testing a bootstrapped glibc?

[Brooks Moses <bmoses at google dot com>]

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 02/27/2014 02:49 PM, Brooks Moses wrote:
>> There are a couple of solution directions that I've thought of:
>>
>> 1) Build a dynamic GCC using the just-built glibc, and install it on
>> top of the static-only GCC we used for building.  This is arguably
>> simpler, but means rebuilding anything in glibc after testing will get
>> different results than before testing.  It also increases the overall
>> build-and-test time.
[...]
>>  How do other people handle this?
>
> My opinion is that everyone does #1.

Thanks for the confirmation -- and to Joseph for the cautions about
probably wanting to reconfigure and rebuild glibc with the new GCC to
avoid erroneous-configuration problems around things like whether C++
is detected.  That's what I ended up implementing for now, and it's
working well enough.

Joseph, I've forgotten from test your patch sequence, but I think you
mentioned it: How far away are we from having all test files starting
with tst-* or a related pattern?  It seems to me that if we made sure
that was always followed, we could put in separate rules for building
test programs that would (optionally) use a different compiler, and
thereby at least avoid the rebuild-glibc step.  If that seems
feasible, I'd be happy to work on a patch.

- Brooks