Re: pedantic: not fussing enough?

[Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>]

Wolfgang Bangerth <wolfgang.bangerth@iwr.uni-heidelberg.de> writes:

> On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Carlos Pita wrote:
> 
>>  I'm studying the ISO C++ standard in some detail. While Im reading it I
>> use to compile some tests using g++ (3.0) with the -pedantic command line
>> option and to compare the actual results (reports) against the ones required
>> by the statements in the standard. I think it would be helpful to post any
>> possible violations to the standard I could find (except, of course, for
>> rules for which no diagnostic is required, which would not be a violation).
> 
> I think it would even be interesting to have the test case that did _not_
> fail: they might be turned into an automatic test suite to assure that
> future gcc development does not break any conformance that exists today.
> There are such conformance test suites, but as far as I know they have
> licenses that do not allow their inclusion into gcc, so having an
> independent 'free' one that could be run as part of the usual regression
> checking would certainly be beneficial.
> 
> So maybe you could modify all your tests (not only those that fail) into a
> form that fits into the regression test suite of gcc?

That would be a worthwile task!  Currently the testsuite contains
mainly tests for things that did not work at one time but trying to
cover the complete C++ standard and therefore covering all parts of
the compiler would help compiler development a lot IMO.

Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger
  SuSE Labs aj@suse.de
   private aj@arthur.inka.de
    http://www.suse.de/~aj