http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53028
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-04-18 18:25:46 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > I don't see much value in this. The primary idea of the gcc testsuite is as a > regression suite. For a regression, there is just one bit of code that you're > testing, with one set of options. I don't understand this. Maybe I didn't explain myself properly. There are already hundreds of testcases that are triplicated with the only difference of not using -pedantic and testing that no warning is given, and using -pedantic and testing for a warning and using -pedantic-errors and testing that an error is given. Such testcases imply: * a duplication of code, which is perhaps not very important nowadays. * a duplication of creation effort, the developer has to create three testcases and add the appropriate markers in all of them. * a duplication of maintainer effort, if a testcase needs to be modified, one has to check whether a warning/error was caused by -pedantic or not and update the corresponding duplicated testcases. Using dg-pedantic will solve the above issues. This is not very different from the torture testcases that test the same code with different optimization options or the c-c++-common testcases, but in this case the meaning of dg-pedantic should change accordingly. Is it possible to implement this in DejaGNU?
