This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch] for PR 27735
Janis Johnson wrote on 08/14/06 10:55:
> I also don't care whether a test includes the name of the person who
> added it, although it's OK to include it. A test associated with a PR
> should definitely mention the PR number in a comment, unless it's
> already the name of the PR. Comments about the purpose of a test are
> important, unless it's obvious from looking at the PR.
Agreed. Tests descriptions are redundant if they are associated to a
specific PR. I sometimes wonder what will happen the next time we
change PR databases, but I guess it shouldn't be hard to implement some
I do not care what test cases are named. I tend to follow 'YYYYMMDD-N'
for test cases with no PR associated and 'prXXXXX' for the others. I'll
use 'pass-XX' for very specific tests.
I can't think what useful purpose would serve having a convention for
test names, but if folks want one, I won't mind.