This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [RFC] Migrating g77 testsuite to gfortran

From: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk>
To: Paul Brook <paul at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, "Billinghurst, David (CALCRTS)" <david dot billinghurst at comalco dot riotinto dot com dot au>, fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:37:55 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [RFC] Migrating g77 testsuite to gfortran
References: <8ED2FA87C8ACC04192709688DDFD5F5F09B362@calttsv025.cal.riotinto.org><200407111233.22715.paul@codesourcery.com>

On Sun, 11 Jul 2004, Paul Brook wrote:

> Maybe. My impression was what that we now favour the dg testsuites over the 
> torture tests. This would be a convenient opportunity to convert these tests 
> if this is indeed the case. FOr most tests this should just be a case of 
> adding dg-do compie or dg-do run to the top of the test.
> 
> Anyone else have any opinions on dg vs. torture?

For C, everything uses the dg harness.

gcc.c-torture: multiple optimization options, built with -w to disable all
warnings.

gcc.dg: no looping over multiple options, defaults to -ansi -pedantic if
no options given.

gcc.dg/torture: like gcc.dg (so no -w) but loops over multiple options.  
Much of gcc.dg that uses some optimization options belongs in there.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers               http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
    jsm@polyomino.org.uk (personal mail)
    jsm28@gcc.gnu.org (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)

References:
- [RFC] Migrating g77 testsuite to gfortran
  - From: Billinghurst, David (CALCRTS)
- Re: [RFC] Migrating g77 testsuite to gfortran
  - From: Paul Brook

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]