RFC: Bugzilla keyword "interp" where it is not clear if a program is standard-conforming or not

[Richard Biener]

On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 8:19 AM Andre Vehreschild <vehre@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I don't like the new keyword. Could we do "stdcomp" (for "standard compliant")
> or something like that? When a keyword allows a question mark, I would even add
> that, i.e.. like "stdcomp?". Or when we like to go with interp then at least
> add "std", i.e. "stdinterp". "interp" alone to me is too near to "interpreter"
> and could collide with searches should there be an interpreter in the gcc suite.
>
> Sorry, for the new way in the discussion.

We have need-bisection and other need-, so iff then maybe a need-stdchk for
cases compliance is unclear?  The fact that a testcase is (non-)compliant is
also not telling anything about the bug reported, unlike rejects-valid
or ice-on-invalid,
so it does not help in bug searches.

Richard.

> - Andre
>
> On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 09:00:47 -0800
> Jerry D <jvdelisle2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2/9/25 1:07 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> > > Hello world,
> > >
> > > looking at a few Fortran bug reports, I found some cases where
> > > it was not clear if the program in question was standard-conforming
> > > or not.  I would propose to add a keyword for that, tentatively
> > > called "interp".
> > >
> > > Comments? Suggestions for a different name?  Should I just go ahead
> > > and create it?
> > >
> > > Best regards
> > >
> > >      Thomas
> >
> > Your suggestion is reasonable and it happens often enough to be useful.
> > It does not have to be an official interpretation needed necessarily.
> > Sometimes we resolve these via discussion and comparison to other compilers.
> >
> > -- Jerry
>
>
> --
> Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de