This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug testsuite/38946] [trunk regression] gcc trunk 143562 - Testsuite - gfortran failing tests that worked previously
- From: "rob1weld at aol dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 27 Jan 2009 22:45:23 -0000
- Subject: [Bug testsuite/38946] [trunk regression] gcc trunk 143562 - Testsuite - gfortran failing tests that worked previously
- References: <bug-38946-13830@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #11 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2009-01-27 22:45 -------
(In reply to comment #9)
> Subject: Re: [trunk regression]?gcc trunk 143562 - Testsuite - gfortran
> failing tests that worked previously
>
>
> I think adding a printf() clone to libiberty is WAY overkill just to
> silence one failing test.
Two alternatives are:
1. A POSIX compliant Testsuite to check gcc libraries. Any program, on
any platform, using (new) gcc _must_ printf() the _same_ output under
any circumstances.
2. Incorrect operation.
Sometimes there is "one failing test" because the Testsuite Coverage
is poor (and we hope more Tests will be forthcoming).
RFE - Need Makefile to test coverage of Testsuite
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38833
By the term "Testsuite Coverage" I mean both in that the tests that we
do have do not fully exercise the features they test _and_ also that
we do not test all possible features but instead we slack off and
simply disable the Tests (as is being suggested in this Thread).
I believe Bug 36443 should be investigated first but failing that
is it not the place of Libiberty to fix what GNU believes is broken?
Wave @ DJ (net-acquaintance of 25+ years),
Rob
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38946