This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix PR bootstrap/57154 (issue9179043)
- From: Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google dot com>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 18:47:53 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR bootstrap/57154 (issue9179043)
- References: <CAGWvnynxWzPWvcoOfLWA7xMhMnH9P_QMGiX7OrMqbTODm3yDwQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAAe5K+X177QJEmxc79j_dHQoXteLyENaG8M9MWE+igCMwqX-Gw at mail dot gmail dot com> <5183F345 dot 3000906 at redhat dot com> <CAGWvnykmT7haMqGg+uy2Z7dLV+dmViakbM5=HgL0C-1ZhtY9DQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAAe5K+VyX27URnBJ1fO0P5LR+d+7PgQUPNZr-8ocEnwLCihnRQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAAe5K+VFYiE+fQ1Fc9sHN_V5bUuwCbgBZBy+rR3gvJfd77j=NA at mail dot gmail dot com> <51840630 dot 4060302 at redhat dot com> <CAAe5K+XyYV2xwHiJhFhRWuNh4uonOHB0Pp1CCRKTOjsgDLw84g at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAAe5K+V65w+9c+5iOoHf04xrxq1-FDegtOvJrjRx=3VceGy79A at mail dot gmail dot com> <5187CB2C dot 7060001 at redhat dot com> <20130506152907 dot GL28963 at tucnak dot redhat dot com>
Thanks for the background. I had gone ahead and put it into gcc.dg,
but next time I can put it in gcc.dg/torture.
Teresa
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 09:24:28AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 05/03/2013 04:46 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>> >On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson@google.com> wrote:
>> >>Yes it will ICE on failure. What is the guideline on c.torture vs gcc.dg?
>> I don't think there's any general guidelines.
>>
>> c-torture was an older framework that was considerably less
>> expressive in terms of control of flags, testing for specific
>> messages, etc. But c-torture had the advantage that it iterates
>> through a (predefined) list of options, testing each one
>> individually while gcc.dg ran each test a single time.
>>
>> A many years ago parts of the older c-torture framework were
>> revamped to utilize the gcc.dg framework *but* they kept the ability
>> to run the tests with a variety of options.
>>
>> Based on my experience I tend to prefer the torture framework as it
>> gives coverage across a wider variety of options and that's proven
>> useful through the years. For this particular test the increase in
>> coverage is marginal, hence my comment "No objection to it being in
>> gcc.dg though".
>
> Note that there is also gcc.dg/torture/ which also runs multiple options.
>
> Jakub
--
Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson@google.com | 408-460-2413