http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53028
--- Comment #4 from Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net> 2012-04-18 20:01:23 UTC --- You explained yourself properly. Just because there are hundreds that do this, doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with them. Personally, I'd rip out all but one of them that either test for the warning or error, it is a cost benefit valuation. As for what is possible in DjeaGnu, it is turing complete, so, one can put in anything for which a turing machine can compute the answer, however, the bar is higher than that. The question is, is it a good idea. To answer this, my experience tells me, no, not really. Now, other people's experiences differ, and I could be swayed by their experience. For example, please provide 10 PRs in which we had regressions that could have been caught, but weren't, because we didn't have such testing. If none, then, what exactly is the benefit you see? For the torture options, history is littered with oodles of such bugs, in fact, the shear numbers caused people to do the entire torture framework. It was put in, to try and permanently stem the tide of such bugs, so they never happen again, or, at least to reduce in a major way, the shear numbers and to enhance the reliability of the compiler, and hence, it's reputation. Experience tells me, 20-20 hind sight, that the motivation was good and the results are worth it and that it was the right decision. It also tells me that removing the torture options would be a mistake and we would sink back into where we were before if we wanted to try and remove them. Now, a counter point. -pedantic-errors often will not work well because of things in system header files. It might be reasonable to #include all the system headers in a torture setup to ensure that C, C++, pedantic, pedantic errors, c89, c99 and so on, all work. The benefit, as failures are found, we can fixinclude or engineer some sort of solution, so that the user has a nice experience with the compiler. I think spending time on this, it a better cost/benefit choice. So, to recap, ripping out all but one solve the duplication problem you point out, it solves the duplication of creation effort you point out, it solves the duplication of maintaining the testsuite you point out. It also has the added benefit of not wasting valuable testing time testing things that never fail. The above I think is generally true, but I concede there are specific instances where it is not. I'll help you understand what I wrote, but I don't know what part you don't understand. That dejagnu is a regression suite? What the word regression means? That one test is sufficient to test a pedantic message?
