Thanks for the background. I had gone ahead and put it into gcc.dg, but next time I can put it in gcc.dg/torture.
Teresa On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 09:24:28AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 05/03/2013 04:46 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote: >> >On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohn...@google.com> >> >wrote: >> >>Yes it will ICE on failure. What is the guideline on c.torture vs gcc.dg? >> I don't think there's any general guidelines. >> >> c-torture was an older framework that was considerably less >> expressive in terms of control of flags, testing for specific >> messages, etc. But c-torture had the advantage that it iterates >> through a (predefined) list of options, testing each one >> individually while gcc.dg ran each test a single time. >> >> A many years ago parts of the older c-torture framework were >> revamped to utilize the gcc.dg framework *but* they kept the ability >> to run the tests with a variety of options. >> >> Based on my experience I tend to prefer the torture framework as it >> gives coverage across a wider variety of options and that's proven >> useful through the years. For this particular test the increase in >> coverage is marginal, hence my comment "No objection to it being in >> gcc.dg though". > > Note that there is also gcc.dg/torture/ which also runs multiple options. > > Jakub -- Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohn...@google.com | 408-460-2413
