https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53028
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53028
--- Comment #11 from Mike Stump 2012-04-30
01:08:24 UTC ---
>> also don't test that the warning goes away with -w. We don't test the
>> warning
>> turns into an error with -Werror.
>
> Don't we?
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-04/m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53028
--- Comment #10 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-28
00:02:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> also don't test that the warning goes away with -w. We don't test the warning
> turns into an error with -Werror.
Don't we?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53028
--- Comment #9 from Mike Stump 2012-04-24
00:31:35 UTC ---
Since little proof was added to support the assertion that the additional
testing is useful, I can remain skeptical about it, though, the CFE people
certainly are free to require it, what
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53028
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-04-23 21:38:00 UTC ---
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012, mikestump at comcast dot net wrote:
> I don't see much value in this. The primary idea of the gcc testsuite is as a
> regression suite. For a re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53028
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-19
07:03:30 UTC ---
grep -F "pedantic-errors" testsuite/gcc.dg/*.c
Most of those testcases are duplicated or triplicated.
Another alternative could be if -pedantic warnings always were associated
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53028
--- Comment #6 from Mike Stump 2012-04-18
22:42:55 UTC ---
So, do you have a pointer to where a maintainer said that they require 3
duplicates for a piece of work? For all similar future work? They usually
say, please include a testcase, meanin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53028
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-18
21:47:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
>
> 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
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53028
--- Comment #4 from Mike Stump 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 t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53028
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 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 tha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53028
--- Comment #2 from Mike Stump 2012-04-18
17:35:23 UTC ---
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 opti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53028
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org,
12 matches
Mail list logo
