This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: EH bug in Makefile.in
- To: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>
- Subject: Re: EH bug in Makefile.in
- From: Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 10:51:53 -0700
- cc: khan at xraylith dot wisc dot edu (Mumit Khan), hjl at lucon dot org, egcs at cygnus dot com
- Reply-To: law at cygnus dot com
In message <199710260332.UAA08639@atrus.synopsys.com>you write:
> FAIL: g++.benjamin/warn01.C (test for excess errors)
> XPASS: g++.jason/destruct3.C - (test for bogus messages, line 38)
> FAIL: g++.jason/template31.C (test for excess errors)
> XPASS: g++.mike/dyncast1.C Execution test
> XPASS: g++.mike/dyncast2.C Execution test
> FAIL: g++.mike/eh35.C Execution test
>
> Pretty impressive!
Very cool.
> Question though: do folks think MRS's exception tests
> cover the problem areas well, or are there other failure modes (someone
> mentioned that delete is not called if a contructor for an object
> allocated by new throws an exception, are there others?)?
I don't they have that good of coverage -- they're some real basic
functionality tests + regression test for problems he ran into at
various times.
As such, I see them (and most of our testsuites) as being able to
tells us whether or not we've really botched something badly or
if we're regressing.
jeff