Re: [PATCH] Fix PR bootstrap/57154 (issue9179043)

[Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google dot com>]

Thanks for the background. I had gone ahead and put it into gcc.dg,
but next time I can put it in gcc.dg/torture.

Teresa

On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 09:24:28AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 05/03/2013 04:46 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>> >On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson@google.com> wrote:
>> >>Yes it will ICE on failure. What is the guideline on c.torture vs gcc.dg?
>> I don't think there's any general guidelines.
>>
>> c-torture was an older framework that was considerably less
>> expressive in terms of control of flags, testing for specific
>> messages, etc.  But c-torture had the advantage that it iterates
>> through a (predefined) list of options, testing each one
>> individually while gcc.dg ran each test a single time.
>>
>> A many years ago parts of the older c-torture framework were
>> revamped to utilize the gcc.dg framework *but* they kept the ability
>> to run the tests with a variety of options.
>>
>> Based on my experience I tend to prefer the torture framework as it
>> gives coverage across a wider variety of options and that's proven
>> useful through the years.  For this particular test the increase in
>> coverage is marginal, hence my comment "No objection to it being in
>> gcc.dg though".
>
> Note that there is also gcc.dg/torture/ which also runs multiple options.
>
>         Jakub



-- 
Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson@google.com | 408-460-2413