Related articles |
---|
Reference source for C-compiler validation? jbredno@yahoo.de (2001-11-05) |
Re: Reference source for C-compiler validation? joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2001-11-08) |
Re: Reference source for C-compiler validation? loewis@informatik.hu-berlin.de (Martin von Loewis) (2001-11-08) |
Re: Reference source for C-compiler validation? axel@dtone.org (Axel Kittenberger) (2001-11-08) |
Re: Reference source for C-compiler validation? zackw@panix.com (Zack Weinberg) (2001-11-08) |
Re: Reference source for C-compiler validation? nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2001-11-08) |
Re: Reference source for C-compiler validation? ceco@no_smap_jupiter.com (Tzvetan Mikov) (2001-11-08) |
Re: Reference source for C-compiler validation? joshualevy@yahoo.com (2001-12-03) |
From: | Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com> |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | 8 Nov 2001 23:16:27 -0500 |
Organization: | PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. |
References: | 01-11-019 01-11-033 |
Keywords: | C, testing |
Posted-Date: | 08 Nov 2001 23:16:27 EST |
Joachim Durchholz <joachim.durchholz@gmx.de> writes:
>> [If you're willing to pay money, there are some nice test suites.
>> If not, you're going to get what you pay for. -John]
>
>I dimly recall having seen a test suite as part of the gcc delivery. It
>might be a starting point, though I never took a serious look at it.
There is, but it's not a conformance suite. It tests for the
recurrence of bugs which have previously been found and fixed.
This means that, although a quality compiler will of course compile
all of the code in there (modulo platform-specific code, unwanted
extensions, etc), the converse is not necessarily true. Your compiler
might get through the entire gcc test suite and still have serious
bugs in some area which wasn't tested.
zw
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.