Keith Thompson said:
Agreed. Anybody who wants to try using the gcc test suite to test a
non-gcc ISO C compiler obviously will have to investigate the suite to
determine whether it will suits his purposes. Maybe it will, maybe it
won't.
There is a lot more to validation than that. I doubt it will be of any
real use.
I agree but just for once I am having a go at CBF with his own logic. He
doesn't like it.
I asked you whether you're actually familiar with the gcc test suite.
Though you didn't answer directly, your responses implied that you
haven't even looked at it.
Correct. I asked some one else who had.
The previous poster asked about C test suites. Suggesting the gcc
test suite is perfectly reasonable
No it is not. The GCC test suite is for GCC not ISO-C
(with the proviso that it *may or
may not* be suitable). You, on the other hand, are accusing Chuck of
hypocricy -- and you *don't know what you're talking about*.
He is hypocritical. Given his usual stance on anything not PURE ISO C
the Gcc test suite falls down on his own logic.
This is something I and others have complained about that a small group
of you scream OT on anything you don't like but do not apply the same
rules to yourselves.
I could have suggested any number of test suites that (according to CBF
previously) are for compilers of a "c-like" language. When these
compilers are far more ISO -c that GCC.
CBF can't have it both ways. The GCC test suite is not an ISO C test
suite it is a GCC test suite. gcc is a "C like" language. Simple as
that.
Now you see how annoying it gets to the rest of use with al this OT
crap.
When it comes to compiler validation it is one of the few areas where
you have to be very precise and CBF wants to be approximate, maybe.
Anyway the good news I I will not be bothering you for a week as I am
off on a trip. Ironically it has to do with compiler validation...