Re: GCC with formal testing docs

[Robert Dewar <dewar at adacore dot com>]

Joe Buck wrote:

> Right.  However, some coverage-oriented methodologies explicitly mark code
> that is expected to be unreachable, and produce unit tests to exercise at
> least some of the defensive code that no longer gets run by the compiler
> as a whole.  If any volunteers would like to take on the job of improving
> and tracking coverage (by a combination of more tests, unit tests, and
> marking code that is currently unreachable but should remain for safety
> purposes) that could be helpful.

Absolutely, doing systematic coverage work of this kind
would indeed be very helpful! I am not sure though that
we want unit tests per se, much more useful are tests that
excercise the code in the context of a complete gcc build.