This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: A testcase library
- From: Volker Reichelt <reichelt at igpm dot rwth-aachen dot de>
- To: jakub at redhat dot com
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, bangerth at ticam dot utexas dot edu, janis187 at us dot ibm dot com, ehrhardt at mathematik dot uni-ulm dot de
- Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 14:13:23 +0100
- Subject: Re: A testcase library
On 20 Dec, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 01:40:49PM +0100, Volker Reichelt wrote:
>> Since GNATS has its limitations with respect to searching for relevant
>> information about testcases, I started collecting *small* testcases
>> for easy grepping. Until now, I've collected (with the help of
>> Wolfgang and of course the submitters) more than 200 of such testcases.
>>
>> Maybe the testcase library is useful for other bug-hunters, so here it
>> is. I also wrote a little script that helps me keeping track of the
>> information. Maybe that is of interest, too. The library and the script
>> come with a small Readme, which you might want to read first.
>>
>> Comments and testcases for inclusion in the library are welcome.
>> If this is of interest I could post the updated stuff regularly.
>
> Good work, thanks.
> Unless they are already in gcc testsuite, shouldn't they all be checked
> in after converting them to dg (or c-torture) format, ideally on all of 3.2/3.3
> branches and trunk?
This is not current policy. Christian has asked a similar question
before, and got the following mail snippet from Craig:
=================================================================================
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 09:47:24AM +0000, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> Craig Rodrigues wrote:
> > A few questions:
> > (1) Can I commit my testcase to the testsuite, since it is definitely
> > a regression from gcc 3.1 and gcc 3.2?
> No, we only commit test cases when the bug's fixed. The rationale being you
> don't want to add a new failing test case -- that'd confuse people. Marking
> it XFAIL isn't really the right solution, as then when you fix the bug, you
> don't know whether fixing the XFAIL was accidental, and end up adding a new
> test case anyway. Also, in fixing the bug, you (well I at least), can
> construct a better test case having undersytood the failure mode.
=================================================================================
But that doesn't keep us from doing something similar in a different
location. I had some discussion over the topic in private mail with
Wolfgang and we decided to wait for Bugzilla before setting up something
new. But maybe there are better suggestions?
Regards,
Volker