GCC compat testsuite
Janis Johnson
janis187@us.ibm.com
Mon Jan 5 19:54:00 GMT 2004
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 06:57:19PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> Hello Janis,
>
> For various reasons it might be useful to run the compat testsuite against a
> non-GCC compiler (for example, the vendor compiler might help to correctly
> implement an awkward ABI like the SPARC64's). Now some testcases use
> GCC-specific idioms, so they don't compile with non-GCC compilers, although
> they contain individual tests that would.
>
> I've attached a logfile for a GCC vs Sun Studio 8 CC run on SPARC64:
> - _Complex means the keyword is used with non-fp types,
> - packed means the 'packed' attribute is used,
> - __INT_MAX__ means '__INT_MAX__' is tested,
> - array[0] means an array is declared with a null size,
> - ?? means the cause is unknown (most likely a deviation from the ABI).
>
> What about clearly separating the testcases that use only Standard C99
> features from the GCC-specific ones? The latter could be prefixed by "gcc_".
That sounds like a good idea. I made the tests big to reduce the time
to compile them, but if there are good reasons then the functionality
can be split into multiple tests.
> I'm ok to do the work
Cool. Feel free to contact me privately to discuss changes first, if
you'd like.
> (btw, is it really necessary to test zero-sized arrays?).
Do zero-sized arrays have ABI implications? I think that's why they're
tested. They can be in separate tests, though.
> I've also attached a tiny patch that fixes the FAIL marked as 'abort()'.
>
>
> 2004-01-05 Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr>
>
> * gcc.dg/compat/sdata-section.h: Declare 'abort'.
This is OK, thanks.
Janis
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list