|Parser validation/test suites ? firstname.lastname@example.org (Kenn Heinrich) (2006-08-09)|
|Re: Parser validation/test suites ? email@example.com (Karsten Nyblad) (2006-08-10)|
|Re: Parser validation/test suites ? DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2006-08-10)|
|Re: Parser validation/test suites ? Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org (Colin Paul Gloster) (2006-08-14)|
|Re: Parser validation/test suites ? firstname.lastname@example.org (2006-08-14)|
|From:||Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com>|
|Date:||10 Aug 2006 15:46:24 -0400|
|Posted-Date:||10 Aug 2006 15:46:23 EDT|
Kenn Heinrich wrote:
> And how would you best indicate pass or fail? I've seen systems using
> special embedded comments that should match a compiler output, parsed
> out and chcked by a test suite dispatcher script, as well as systems
> that organize "good" source in one directory, "should fail with error
> XXX" sources in directory "XXX". What are some of the other schemes
> the masters recommend?
Test suites, for e.g. libraries, include files with the expected program
output. A compiler IMO can be tested just the same way, using the error
log for the output-to-match.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.