From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16202 invoked by alias); 6 Dec 2001 23:08:19 -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 16161 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2001 23:08:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO taltos.codesourcery.com) (66.92.14.122) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Dec 2001 23:08:18 -0000 Received: from zack by taltos.codesourcery.com with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16C7ch-0003eK-00; Thu, 06 Dec 2001 15:08:11 -0800 Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 15:10:00 -0000 From: Zack Weinberg To: Geert Bosch Cc: guerby@acm.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: ACATS legal status cleared by FSF Message-ID: <20011206230811.GK8267@codesourcery.com> References: <20011206194008.GE8267@codesourcery.com> <4DC29618-EA96-11D5-8627-00039344BF4A@gnat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DC29618-EA96-11D5-8627-00039344BF4A@gnat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.24i X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00323.txt.bz2 On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 05:12:14PM -0500, Geert Bosch wrote: > > It is virtually impossible for people to "break" these tests, which > is why I say they are of no value. Even if people *do* manage to > break them (in the hypothetical case that the maintainers would not > catch the error before approving), this will not go unnoticed for a > long time anyway. In the mean time, the *only* programs affected are > programs with fatal errors to start with. > > I would be surprised if there would even be consensus to run just > the executable ACATS tests as part of make check, since this would > already double testing time for all contributors. Adding testing > requirements is not free, and there needs to be a benefit to it. > > For most of the executable ACATS tests I think there is a good > benefit/cost ratio for the front end, and even for the back end. For > that reason I am happy to see Laurent doing the work to get them > integrated. For the B tests, adding testing is of near-zero value at > a high cost. > > Zack, I'd like to see very good reasons why you think it is > reasonable to significantly increase of required volunteer time to > make GNAT changes and that way hinder development and maintenance. I'm 100% confident that there is value to having "make check" drive at least some set of Ada tests. Ever since I've been a member of the project I've been seeing patches to the back end go by with a note "this code is only used by Ada" or "test case is in Ada" (with the implication that writing a C testcase is impossible or at least too much work). How much back end logic is that, that the current test suite doesn't even touch? It may make sense not to run the ACATS B tests by default, but they should at least be _present_ in the repository so that everyone is on an equal footing for changes that affect error messages. zw