This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] PR C/12466 -Wold-style-definition incorrectly warnswithellipsises
- From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>
- To: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, <kelleycook at wideopenwest dot com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 10:51:15 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR C/12466 -Wold-style-definition incorrectly warnswithellipsises
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Kelley Cook wrote:
> > > gcc/testsuite:
> > > * gcc.dg/Wold-style-definition-1.c: Add in 3 ellipsis
> > testcases.
> > Please create a new testcase.
> > *Never add stuff to a testcase, particularly not new tests*.
> > brgds, H-P
> While I normally agree with this, there is a downside if this position
> is taken to an extreme. It takes longer to run the testsuite if we
> have gillions of tiny little files.
> I think we should make a distinction between regression testcases that
> (used to) crash the compiler and feature testcases that ensure a
> feature, flag or optimization/transformation works properly.
Not as long as they look the same to the observer of test-suite
results, and not as long as the modified test-suite would fail
for an "unenhanced" compiler, where it used to succeed.
> In the latter case, as we modify or enhance the feature in question we
> should update the existing testcase to reflect the new reality.
When you modify the feature, I agree you need to modify the
original test-cases. But when you enhance the feature you *add
new test-cases* for the enhancement.
> So here I think it's proper to modify the original testcase.
In this case, the original testcase worked as-is (that was the
presumption at the time I replied to this test-suite patch), and
new test-cases were added. That's the point: new test-cases
should live in a new file.
If the original test-cases needed modification (IIUC, that's
what also happened), well that's a separate change.