From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9802 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2012 18:28:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 9789 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Apr 2012 18:28:12 -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 18:27:25 +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 18:28:00 -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/msg01554.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D53028 --- Comment #3 from Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez 2012-04-18 18:25:46 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > I don't see much value in this. The primary idea of the gcc testsuite is= as a > regression suite. For a regression, there is just one bit of code that y= ou're > testing, with one set of options. I don't understand this. Maybe I didn't explain myself properly. There are already hundreds of testcases that are triplicated with the only difference= of not using -pedantic and testing that no warning is given, and using -pedant= ic and testing for a warning and using -pedantic-errors and testing that an er= ror is given. Such testcases imply: * a duplication of code, which is perhaps not very important nowadays. * a duplication of creation effort, the developer has to create three testc= ases and add the appropriate markers in all of them. * a duplication of maintainer effort, if a testcase needs to be modified, o= ne has to check whether a warning/error was caused by -pedantic or not and upd= ate the corresponding duplicated testcases. Using dg-pedantic will solve the above issues. This is not very different from the torture testcases that test the same co= de with different optimization options or the c-c++-common testcases, but in t= his case the meaning of dg-pedantic should change accordingly. Is it possible to implement this in DejaGNU?