* Jeff Law:
> On 10/11/23 04:39, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> I've started to look at what it is required to convert the testsuite to
>> C99 (without implicit ints, without implicit function declarations, and
>> a few other legacy language features).
> I bet those older tests originating from c-torture will be a bit
> painful. Torbjorn liked having them minimized, to the point of
> squashing out nearly everything he considered extraneous. I'd bet
> many of those older tests are going to need lots of changes.
We can use them to exercise the old C89 features and build with
-std=gnu89. That may not have been the original intent, but I think
it's what these tests are testing today (also noted by Richard
Earnshaw).
>> * Overly reduced test cases where I can verify that the less-reduced
>> test case still reproduces the bug. Can be submitted early.
> Seems like this could be a huge time sink, but that's your call.
Well, if the verification means I can commit these fixes as obvious, it
may be worth it …
>> * Similar test cases where I cannot verify that the test case is
>> still
>> reproducing the bug, but where I assume that the unreduction is
>> harmless as far as the test objective is concerned. Can be submitted
>> early (but should be in a separate patch from the previous one).
> I suspect many of the older tests will fall into this bucket.
Yes, for the newer test cases, verification is generally possible.
One ongoing issue is that gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/ appears to be
used for new tests, but this subtree (or at least parts of it) defaults
to -w, so if you don't use dg-options, can easily check in something
that has a lingering C99 compatibility issue today. Here's an example
from a few weeks ago:
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr111331-1.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr111331-1.c
index 4c7f4fdbaa9..05a6db6dce6 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr111331-1.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr111331-1.c
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ int c(int d, int e, int f) {
int main() {
int g = -1;
a = c(b + 30, 29, g + 29);
- volatile t = a;
+ volatile int t = a;
if (t != 28)
__builtin_abort();
return 0;
Thanks,
Florian
