Hi! On 2025-02-10T20:59:43+0100, Thomas Koenig <tkoe...@netcologne.de> wrote: > Am 10.02.25 um 08:43 schrieb Richard Biener: >> We have need-bisection and other need-, so iff then maybe a need-stdchk for >> cases compliance is unclear? > > That sounds very good to me; if there are no objections, I will create > this in a day or so. > >> The fact that a testcase is (non-)compliant is >> also not telling anything about the bug reported, unlike rejects-valid >> or ice-on-invalid, >> so it does not help in bug searches.
Now that you've said it: > It might attract language lawyers :-) Indeed 'need-language-lawyering' (or similar) would've been my suggestion for the new keyword, but I resisted the color-of-bike-shed opportunity. ;-) Grüße Thomas
