This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Power of the G++ test suite
- To: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>
- Subject: Re: Power of the G++ test suite
- From: David C Binderman <dcb at pncl dot co dot uk>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 19:37:40 +0100 (BST)
- Cc: egcs at cygnus dot com
At 09:30 AM 7/20/98 PDT, you wrote:
>I'm not sure how such a claim can be justified (that you need a specific
>N).
I'm surprised. If the ARM has N sentences in it and the C++ final
spec has M sentences, then I would expect that a test suite claiming
ARM conformance would have at least N tests in it, and one claiming
C++ final standard conformance to have at least M tests in it.
Hopefully more.
>I also don't know what they mean by "the 1995 version of C++". Are
>they referring to draft standard documents from around that date?
Yes.
>From this statement it appears you are assuming that "1995 version of C++"
>== "ARM". But the ARM is much older than that (1990). Since Jeff
I know. I've been at C++ since 1988, and well remember the time when
the only C++ book was Stroustrup 1.
I know ARM is 1990. Or here in Europe, 1991-1992.
>mentioned that Plum Hall covers namespaces, it appears that their 4700
>tests are intended to cover the current version of the language, not the
>ARM.
I still think that trying to claim that the current G++ test suite is
anything like comprehensive, or complete, is wrong.
Hence any claim that G++ has been extensively tested, solely on the
basis of having run the G++ test suite over it, cannot, IMHO, be true.
Regards
David C Binderman MSc BSc +44 1293 534847 dcb@pncl.co.uk