This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [3.4 PATCH] PR 16693: TYPE_PRECISION of C++ enums
- From: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>
- To: Roger Sayle <roger at eyesopen dot com>
- Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
- Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 14:53:28 -0700
- Subject: Re: [3.4 PATCH] PR 16693: TYPE_PRECISION of C++ enums
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0408260800550.3458-100000@www.eyesopen.com>
On Aug 26, 2004, at 7:21 AM, Roger Sayle wrote:
What do others think?
I think it makes sense to use the testsuite to test areas were we want
a certain behavior, even if that behavior is undocumented, undefined or
unspecified... Such testcases should be commented in such as way as to
make them stand out and more obvious that we're talking about a corner
that is beyond the standard, if it isn't readily apparent.
// WARNING - is an obvious one, that is beyond the standard, but one
that we want, but doesn't need extra documentation.
e = (E)7;
if (e == 7) exit (0)
exit (1);
might be one where we point out that it's controversial and wether or
not its been submitted to the committee in some form.
Another example, throwing from a signal handler... Would be good to
test it from C++, but strictly speaking, it isn't part of the language,
well, not yet anyway.