This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: ACATS legal status cleared by FSF
- From: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
- To: dewar at gnat dot com
- Cc: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu, mrs at windriver dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 12:52:34 -0800
- Subject: Re: ACATS legal status cleared by FSF
- References: <20011208025650.7B397F28C7@nile.gnat.com>
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 09:56:50PM -0500, dewar@gnat.com wrote:
> Note that just *reading* B tests to see if the output is correct is
> a very difficult task, one that only someone with quite a bit of
> ACVC/ACATS validation experience can do. A formal validation run
> using these tests often involves several days of painstaking manual
> work by someone who is an expert in the B tests to assure
> compliance.
I think this may be the crux of the difference between the B tests and
the existing "noncompile" tests for gcc and g++. We - all the people
arguing for inclusion of noncompile tests - are used to a context
where it is easy to automate verification that diagnostics are
correctly issued. When diagnostics do legitimately change, the test
harness has to be adjusted, but this is straightforward, easily done
by the person who changed the diagnostics.
You're saying that the B tests are nothing like that, and we are
finding that hard to believe. I'd like to see context - is the ACATS
validation suite available online somewhere I can go look at it?
zw