This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Testsuite reorganization, documentation, cleanup?
On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 03:43:56AM -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 02:58:17PM -0700, Stan Shebs wrote:
> > > I don't like this level of subdivision very much. It's needed for
> > > torture tests because they don't have any info internal to the file,
> > > but in general I think test instructions instructions for a file should
> > > be in the file, not implicit in some detail of its pathname.
>
> Why not? What's wrong with having a directory where different
> optimization options are iterated over, with the exact option
> not explicitly stated in the file? It's quite convenient IMHO.
> If there's a future -O0.5 option, it can be added to the
> iterations.
My proposed new test suite for C++ binary compatibility
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-10/msg00329.html) adds a new
test directory under g++.dg and treats all tests in that directory in
a new way. Information about how a test is run is contained within the
.exp file in that directory rather than in the tests. The suite also
provides for building each test with a variety of compiler options, with
defaults in the test suite that can be overridden in the environment.
It makes sense to me to keep tests like this separate, with information
about running the tests in the .exp script. If there were instructions
within the tests, they would be the same for every test, and I don't see
the point of that.
Documentation for these tests is mostly in a new top-level testsuite
README.compat file, with some information also in the new .exp files.
I'd be happy to move or copy it based on the outcome of this discussion.
I can also add documentation about gcov and bprof tests.
Janis