Re: re:gcc test results question

["David P. Riedel" <driedel at cox dot net>]

Phil

Thanks for the explanations.  You and Joe Buck have given me more insight into 
this area of gcc.

While I'm not a compiler writer, so I can't directly contribute to the gcc 
project, I did become an associate member of the FSF so my dues will help 
indirectly.

Keep up the great work.

Dave Riedel

Phil wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 07:48:54PM -0400, David P. Riedel wrote:
> > let me rephrase my question then.
> > 
> > > Depends on what those tests are testing, and when they started failing.
> 
> I'll restate my answer then, because it hasn't changed.  :-)
> 
> 
> > > Depends on what those tests are testing,
> 
> If the tests in question are testing oddball corner cases of the language,
> or GNU extensions, or for that matter anything which you don't use or
> don't care about, then the fact that the tests fail shouldn't affect your
> decision whether or not to use the compiler.
> 
> My car does a horrible job when underwater.  Since I don't ever use my
> car underwater, I don't care, and this failure of the car's design did
> not enter into my decision to purchase and drive the car.
> 
> Joe's just pointed out that most of the tests are for a GNU extension
> which many projects don't use.  If you're in the majority, you don't care.
> If you're in the minority which use them, then it's a fatal bug.
> 
> 
> > > and when they started failing.
> 
> If the bugs being tested have always been there, then you probably don't
> care about those either; you've probably devised workarounds by now.
> (Not whether the test cases have always failed, but whether the bug being
> tested has always been there.  Testcases usually aren't added until the
> bug is found.)
> 
> 
> Phil
> 
>