Re: [patch] gcc.dg/compare1.c: Add -fno-short-enums.

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

Kazu Hirata <kazu@codesourcery.com> writes:

| Hi Gabym
| 
| > I do not understand.  Why don't you add a new separate testcase for
| > the kind of thing you would like to test?  If this specific testcase
| > is expected to fail on arm*-*-eabi* and arm*-*-symbianelf* then you
| > should mark it as XFAIL for those targets.
| 
| The problem with XFAILing is that we would throw away the first three
| tests in gcc.dg/compare1.c, which are actually useful on
| arm*-*-eabi* and arm*-*-symbianelf*.
| 
| I thought about separating the testcase like so
| 
| http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-06/msg01899.html
| 
| but Paul Brook suggested to use -fno-short-enum.
| 
| http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg00092.html
| 
| As yet another alternative, what about something like the following?
| 
| /* { dg-options "-Wsign-compare" } */
| /* { dg-options "-Wsign-compare" { target arm*-*-eabi* and
| arm*-*-symbianelf* } } */
| 
| We would have to explicitly mention those targets with short enums,
| which I think is a bit uglier than use of -fno-short-enums, but other
| targets are subject to exactly the same options as before, namely
| -Wsign-compare without -fno-short-enums.

The reason I'm uncomfortable with your change is that it basicallly
is taking away testing of a given aspect of the compiler.  We do not
have enough testing coverage of the compiler, so I'm not confident
that we should remove existing ones without good reasons.

Paul thinks -fshort-enums is a [mis]feature, but that is no reason for
taking testcases away.  As uglier as it might look to him, you and me,
enumerating ports where it is expected to fail is far better than
removing testing of particular cases. 

If a new port is added where it is expcted to fail, then the failing
be seen as a reminder of consistency.

-- Gaby