This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch] 1/n: trans-mem: libitm runtime tests
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 23:36:13 +0100
- Subject: Re: [patch] 1/n: trans-mem: libitm runtime tests
- References: <4EB2D2FC.7010403@redhat.com> <4EB2FA8E.3040309@redhat.com> <4EB31523.2050700@redhat.com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 05:26:43PM -0500, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> >I'm going to assume the tests themselves are good. It'd be nice if
> >they all stated what they were testing, but I don't consider that a
> >requirement. If the tests were written independently rather than
> >extracted from another blob of code, you may consider adding a
> >copyright notice to them.
>
> Hmm, we based a lot of the original skeleton from libgomp, and
> AFAICT only one test has a copyright notice:
>
> libgomp.c/sort-1.c
>
> If you feel strongly about this, I can add a copyright notice to
> every test, after I finish all the other recommendations elsewhere.
The reason for the copyright notice in there is that at that time
I felt the test was already quite big, but looking at it now
there are many even bigger tests in libgomp testsuite. And most
of the libgomp tests (except for appendix-a/ tests) were written
independently.
In libstdc++-v3/testsuite it seems most of the tests have the notice
(including very small ones), elsewhere most of the tests don't have
anything at all.
So I would say if the test is really small, it isn't worth adding it
there, perhaps only for very large tests.
Jakub