home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
EnigmA Amiga Run 1995 November
/
EnigmA AMIGA RUN 02 (1995)(G.R. Edizioni)(IT)[!][issue 1995-11][Skylink CD].iso
/
earcd
/
program
/
gcc
/
gcc270-s.lha
/
gcc-2.7.0-amiga
/
TESTS.FLUNK
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1992-01-29
|
1KB
|
40 lines
This is a collection of things that test suites have
said were "wrong" with GCC--but that I don't agree with.
First, test suites sometimes test for compatibility with
traditional C. GCC with -traditional is not completely
compatible with traditional C, and in some ways I think it
should not be.
* K&R C allowed \x to appear in a string literal (or character
literal?) even in cases where it is *not* followed by a sequence of
hex digits. I'm not convinced this is desirable.
* K&R compilers allow comments to cross over an inclusion boundary (i.e.
started in an include file and ended in the including file).
I think this would be quite ugly and can't imagine it could
be needed.
Sometimes tests disagree with GCC's interpretation of the ANSI standard.
* One test claims that this function should return 1.
enum {A, B} foo;
func (enum {B, A} arg)
{
return B;
}
I think it should return 0, because the definition of B that
applies is the one in func.
* Some tests report failure when the compiler does not produce
an error message for a certain program.
ANSI C requires a "diagnostic" message for certain kinds of invalid
programs, but a warning counts as a diagnostic. If GCC produces
a warning but not an error, that is correct ANSI support.
When test suites call this "failure", the tests are broken.