This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: g++.old-deja/g++.mike/p7325.C - suspected bogus test case


On Friday, June 25, 2004, at 11:00 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
Test case g++.old-deja/g++.mike/p7325.C (appended to this message, for
reference) appears to be invalid.

Yes, 7325 refers to (now old) cygnus bug reporting system. Jason could probably confirm my memory or elaborate.


We want to ensure short life times of things that have short lifetimes and that we reuse the space quickly. This is not an unreasonable thing to test or expect and it is important to test for such things. I don't know of an easy or better way to test for this. I suppose that a statistical approach might be better, essentially take the address of an automatic and just have many, many large objects and then check to see how we are doing on space.

I believe it used to work and pass, and someone broke it and didn't fix it.

You want to get rid of a test case that found a regression instead of enticing someone to fix the compiler? This seems odd. Usually, we find who introduced the regression and ask them to fix it. I'd say the test case is doing its job.

Why not just fix the compiler?

I object to removing tests that actually reliably find regressions.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]