lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Aug]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateTue, 1 Aug 2000 22:59:40 +0100 (BST)
FromJames Sutherland <>
SubjectRe: Good luck when RedHat 7.0 comes out (was RE: test5 oops after kswapd)...
On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Marcus Meissner wrote:

> In article <NBBBJGOOMDFADJDGDCPHMEOHCHAA.law@sgi.com> you wrote:
> ...
> > I may be out in left field, but my idea of a thorough development
> > and release process would be to take all the tools one just built and
> > use those to produce a 3rd generation. Then take those tools and produce
> > a 4th generation. If 3rd!=4th (subtracting out time/date stamps) then
> > it would seem something is wrong -- or am I missing something?
>
> > Now that whole process would be automated and if the 3rd and 4th compare,
> > then kick off the automated test suites.
>
> > Maybe RedHat doesn't use a thorough source and release methodology
> > for their Beta's?
>
> Just FYI, we do exactly that at Caldera for the last years. (And we call it
> self-hosting ;)

GCC does something similar during its own installation: first it builds a
bare-bones compiler with the local cc, then recompiles itself to produce a
GCC-built GCC - then repeats that step, and compiles the two results.

There are a couple of issues with some platforms adding timestamps etc
within the binary, IIRC, but it's basically just a simple file compare.

Of course, it's not sufficient to detect the recursive Trojan cc approach,
but it's a pretty good consistency/sanity check.


James.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [from the cache]
©2003-2010