From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10869 invoked by alias); 9 Dec 2001 22:00:13 -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 10848 invoked from network); 9 Dec 2001 22:00:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO anagyris.wanadoo.fr) (193.252.19.151) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Dec 2001 22:00:12 -0000 Received: from villosa.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.122) by anagyris.wanadoo.fr; 9 Dec 2001 23:00:11 +0100 Received: from ulmo.localdomain (193.251.50.176) by villosa.wanadoo.fr; 9 Dec 2001 23:00:09 +0100 Received: (from guerby@localhost) by ulmo.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id fB9LpfT02892; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 22:51:41 +0100 Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2001 14:52:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200112092151.fB9LpfT02892@ulmo.localdomain> X-Authentication-Warning: ulmo.localdomain: guerby set sender to guerby@acm.org using -f From: To: zack@codesourcery.com CC: dewar@gnat.com, kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu, mrs@windriver.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org In-reply-to: <20011209205234.GP280@codesourcery.com> (message from Zack Weinberg on Sun, 9 Dec 2001 12:52:34 -0800) Subject: Re: ACATS legal status cleared by FSF Reply-to: guerby@acm.org References: <20011208025650.7B397F28C7@nile.gnat.com> <20011209205234.GP280@codesourcery.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00446.txt.bz2 > I think this may be the crux of the difference between the B tests and > the existing "noncompile" tests for gcc and g++. We - all the people > arguing for inclusion of noncompile tests - are used to a context > where it is easy to automate verification that diagnostics are > correctly issued. We here = everyone, I know of no one that posted and is against the inclusion of B tests. And yes "it is easy to automate" for ACATS too, but once you have done (and/or adapted from ACT) the baselining (proper GCC specific marking and splitting) for 11886 errors in 1525 files. The ACATS writers of course did marking, but targeted at no specific compiler, and that means not for the current GCC in particular. This work (marking at the right place and splitting so the compiler dont abort in the middle) has been done as part of growing the noncompile section of the GCC testsuite, but that's not zero sum work. Once you have that done for ACATS, when you improve or change error recovery or introduce new messages, or change the place where message are emitted, you're faced with updating the baseline, and on ACATS, that probably means something in the hundred of baseline updates in addition to your 20 lines frontend patch. Not undoable of course (all Ada vendors are doing it), but it will not necessarily mean that GCC Ada error messages will improve because of it. BTW is there any record of the existing noncompile testsuite catching problems, or did it just prevent any serious error message work by scaring people? And the main point: we need a volunteer. > I'd like to see context - is the ACATS validation suite available > online somewhere I can go look at it? See my previous posts, at least: PS: I'm behind schedule for the execute test tarball, may be during this week or next weekend. -- Laurent Guerby