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: Pruning for torture tests?

From: IainS <developer at sandoe-acoustics dot co dot uk>
To: Rainer Orth <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE>
Cc: GCC Mailing List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Janis Johnson <janis dot marie dot johnson at gmail dot com>, Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:53:17 +0000
Subject: Re: Pruning for torture tests?
References: <5A40FB01-90F9-44FD-B6A1-1982868A27AD@sandoe-acoustics.co.uk> <yddpqphd6b5.fsf@manam.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>

Hi Rainer,

On 23 Mar 2011, at 18:45, Rainer Orth wrote:

On Darwin, we have a number of gcc.c-torture fails reported for both ppc and i386 which are bogus (nothing to do with gcc - but simply warning output from a system tool).

For dg-based tests these are pruned - I wonder if it would be worth adding a prune capability to the torture suites?
IMO this is the wrong approach.  I'd like us to move away from the
non-dg testsuites if at all possible.

I personally agree...

... but when I suggested this for the (relatively small) ObjC set of torture tests, it was not greeted enthusiastically...

(the problem voiced, IIRC, is of maintaining audit history of test pass/fails)

... I'd imagine that this would be amplified 100x for the other torture suites.

Iain

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Pruning for torture tests?
  - From: Rainer Orth

References:
- Re: Pruning for torture tests?
  - From: Rainer Orth

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