On 10/11/23 08:10, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 11/10/2023 14:56, Jeff Law wrote:
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.
I've often wondered just how much of the original c-torture suite is still
relevant today. Most of those tests were written at a time when the compiler
expanded tree directly into RTL and I suspect that today the tests never get
even close to tickling the original bug they were intended to validate.
I'm sure it's a mixed bag. Some I do see pop up regularly during
development testing.
The real way to try and answer that question would be with gcov.
Something like take an existing coverage report, run test and see if it
added any additional coverage. If not, flag it as potentially
irrelevant. Do this on x86 or aarch64.
Given that list of potentially irrelevant tests, then look at them from
a target standpoint, potentially testing with the same methodology on
several targets, perhaps a standardized set meant to cover 16->64 bit
targets, big/little endian and a few other key features.
jeff
