From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 998 invoked by alias); 5 Dec 2001 23:28:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 977 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2001 23:28:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Dec 2001 23:28:48 -0000 Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA26505; Wed, 5 Dec 01 18:23:21 EST Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 15:28:00 -0000 From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Message-Id: <10112052323.AA26505@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> To: guerby@acm.org Subject: Re: ACATS legal status cleared by FSF Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00248.txt.bz2 Another quetsion is what compilation options do we run them with? Do we use -O0, -O1, -O2 or do we run them with all three? In my experience, the ACATS tests are only a moderately-good test of the backend. The C2 tests really don't test anything in the backend at all and the C7, C8, CA, and CB tests are nearly totally front-end tests. C9 and CXD mostly checks the library. My suggestion is to use C3, C4, C5, C6, CD, CXA, and CXG as the tests run regularly as back-end tests and to run them with the same collection of options we use for the C execution tests.