From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 881 invoked by alias); 7 Jan 2007 22:41:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 862 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Jan 2007 22:41:49 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com (HELO wx-out-0506.google.com) (66.249.82.239) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 07 Jan 2007 22:41:45 +0000 Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id h31so7598710wxd for ; Sun, 07 Jan 2007 14:41:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.90.89.5 with SMTP id m5mr1677382agb.1168209703308; Sun, 07 Jan 2007 14:41:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.90.70.5 with HTTP; Sun, 7 Jan 2007 14:41:43 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <6c33472e0701071441w57b095e8qa345d325c74c6136@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 22:41:00 -0000 From: "=?UTF-8?Q?Manuel_L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez?=" To: "Joseph S. Myers" Subject: Re: PATCH RFA: C++ frontend warning: comparing function pointer to NULL Cc: "Ian Lance Taylor" , gcc-patches , "Gabriel Dos Reis" , "Andrew Pinski" , "Mark Mitchell" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <6c33472e0701070530w3a137b72y10d55582fbe2b145@mail.gmail.com> <6c33472e0701071312q1f086794w7fceee1951683a2d@mail.gmail.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-01/txt/msg00528.txt.bz2 On 07/01/07, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Sun, 7 Jan 2007, Manuel Lopez-Ibanez wrote: > > > Also, perhaps we could consider this something to take into account > > before sending patches that add new testcases. Most of the time, a > > simple grep on the option name or a representative part of the > > expected output will bring up similar (and thus redundant) testcases. > > Maybe this could be commented somewhere... > > It's generally a mistake to consider testcases redundant unless actually > identical. While two testcases may appear to test the same thing with the > current implementation while the compiler is working correctly, a > reimplementation of a feature or diagnostic could cause them to take > different code paths, and a regression could break one similar case but > not the other. Of course, being strict, unless the two testcase files are byte-wise identical, anything may happen. But I guess that there may be some practical assumptions about the equivalence of testcases that allows to avoid testing every possible variation of any random testcase. For example, I would consider that it is generally safe to assume from a practical point of view that if two testcases vary only in whitespace, then they may be considered equivalent. I would go a bit further and consider that if two testcases vary only on the names of identifiers, then they may be considered equivalent. I guess we could find more practical assumptions. Of course, equivalence should be decided for each testcase. What I wished to say is that it should be taken into account. Or perhaps not, if we don't care about the testsuite size, regression testing time and testcases getting silently obsolete. It was more a subtle question that a firm proposal. Here is another question, if I find a testcase in g++.old-deja that is relevant for a patch that I am going to submit, would it be appropriate to move it to g++.dg/X and give it an apter name? For example, if I am preparing testcases such Wsuperwarning-1.C, Wsuperwarning-2.C and I find that g++.old-deja/g++.mike/warn19.C is relevant for -Wsuperwarning, should I do "mv g++.old-deja/g++.mike/warn19.C g++.dg/warn/Wsuperwarning-3.C ? Cheers, Manuel.