From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31885 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2002 16:21:05 -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 31875 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2002 16:21:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-out1.apple.com) (17.254.0.52) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Oct 2002 16:21:01 -0000 Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (A17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g98GL1i24234 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2002 09:21:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scv1.apple.com (scv1.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Tue, 8 Oct 2002 09:20:52 -0700 Received: from apple.com (il0102a-dhcp78.apple.com [17.201.27.206]) by scv1.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g98GL0b04735; Tue, 8 Oct 2002 09:21:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3DA305A2.3000208@apple.com> Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 11:09:00 -0000 From: Stan Shebs User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hans-Peter Nilsson CC: Nathanael Nerode , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Testsuite reorganization, documentation, cleanup? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00479.txt.bz2 Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: >On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > >>On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 02:58:17PM -0700, Stan Shebs wrote: >> >>>I don't like this level of subdivision very much. It's needed for >>>torture tests because they don't have any info internal to the file, >>>but in general I think test instructions instructions for a file should >>>be in the file, not implicit in some detail of its pathname. >>> > >Why not? What's wrong with having a directory where different >optimization options are iterated over, with the exact option >not explicitly stated in the file? It's quite convenient IMHO. >If there's a future -O0.5 option, it can be added to the >iterations. > That's why I said "in general". The current torture test structure is very efficient for the purpose it serves, and I don't see much need to change it, although it would be very useful to document it more. A amusing pragmatic reason: someday the compiler will ICE with -Os on an empty file. :-) This touches on a meta-reason for not trying to force every test into a completely uniform framework; as with monoculture farming, you're exposed to bugs that only happen in programs not structured in the same way. That's why I discouraged uniform GNU-style formatting for the GDB testsuite programs; it's easy to imagine GDB bugs where source lines always list correctly for GNU formatting, and incorrectly for other styles. (A way to encourage the One True Style I suppose. :-) ) Stan