This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Testsuites
* testcase should fail (a FAIL is the correct compilation/execution response)
This should never happen. That testcase is badly written -- or
DejaGnu is not flexible enough.
* testcase XFAILs now, but is a bug and should be tackled sometime
* testcase XFAILs with an ICE, I really don't understand the
These two are the same. An XFAIL means "this is a bug, but we know it
doesn't work right now". When we have spare time, we should go
through these and try to fix them.
reasoning behind that... This doesn't distinguish between C++ internal
numbered ICE's and enable-checking ICE's, which might even hide an easy
bugfix in my eyes.
It would be great if the DejaGNU gave more detailed output. But the
XFAIL/XPASS/FAIL/PASS terminology is POSIX, I think, which is a good
justification for using it.
- the C++ testsuite doesn't loop over optimization options, an additional
run with -O2 would be nice here, this would also let the testcases override
the optimization correctly.
Some C++ testscases do specify -O2, or other options. Many of the C++
testscases are just checking that language features work -- -O2
generally doesn't make any difference. It is true that looping over
-O2 would be more comprehensive of course; but I'm not sure it's worth
it.
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com