https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99576
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Adrian Perl from comment #7) Again, thanks for working on this. > Bootstrapping was successfull and the tests are currently running. Some of > the tests have failed, but they don't seem to be related to coroutines. On most platforms, at any given point in the cycle, there will be failing tests... > Should I test twice, with and without the patch, in order to see the actual > impact? ... so ,yes, that is the usual approac. there are some tools that help you compare the results. I personally use: ${src}/contrib/test_summary > summ.txt and then the same in the patched build tree ... ... and then compare the two summ.txt files side-by side using diff -> less. (it is important that the same number of tests are executed of course, so the numbers are relevant as well as the pass/fail). Your number for g++ should be bigger by the ones added. > Most of the test-applications attached and posted in the bug reports only > log to stdout/stderr. Should I rewrite them and add assertions? The usual mechanism is to do a test and to abort()*** on fail [an assert is equivalent]. The reason for the abort() rather than, say, returning non-zero from main is that when tests are conducted on remote embedded platforms, the return value from main() might not be available. *** For c++ tests, the extra of pulling in <cassert> or <cstdlib> is likely not significant, but if you want to avoid that (it can make debugging easier to reduce the number of headers pulled in) .. then you can use __builtin_abort();