From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17297 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2012 21:48:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 17287 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Apr 2012 21:48:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 21:48:05 +0000 From: "manu at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug testsuite/53028] add dg-pedantic Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 21:48:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: testsuite X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: manu at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg01572.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D53028 --- Comment #5 from Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez 2012-04-18 21:47:10 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) >=20 > So, to recap, ripping out all but one solve the duplication problem you p= oint > out, it solves the duplication of creation effort you point out, it solve= s the > duplication of maintaining the testsuite you point out. It also has the = added > benefit of not wasting valuable testing time testing things that never fa= il. >=20 OK, now I understand your point of view. I agree to a certain extent, in the sense that the current cost/benefit effort is not worth it. If we had alrea= dy something like dg-pedantic, the human overhead disappears, but then one cou= ld argue that it is still not worth the extra testing time. Unfortunately, such testcases are still required during the review process. Well, since you are testsuite maintainer, I can try to point to this report in the future as to= why I didn't bother to add them. ;-)