32-bit Changes

Nick Burrett nick at dsvr.net
Mon Apr 21 14:08:00 PDT 2003

John Tytgat wrote:
> In message <264ec9e64b.peter at chocky.org>
>           Peter Naulls <peter at chocky.org> wrote:
>>In message <cd74c6e64b.Jo at hobbes.bass-software.com>
>>          John Tytgat <John.Tytgat at aaug.net> wrote:
>>>I'm always in favour having a set of sanity test cases checked in which
>>>can be run to check if a certain fix did break something obvious.  Please
>>>do !
>>I'm not proposing to do any more than I've done mind, but are there any
>>other specific areas of concern you have?
> Well, I'm wondering if there isn't any free set of a (Posix, ANSI, etc)
> test set we can use to ensure a certain level of correctness of UnixLib
> so that each time we do some changes in UnixLib, we can at least run the
> same test set and ensure to have the same (if not better) output results.
> If there isn't (or it is too big, or UnixLib isn't (yet ?) covering
> enough for such a test set), we can perhaps collect our private test files
> we have (I have a couple for testing the backtraces and signal code)
> in a directory together with a small explanation what these files should
> output.

There are no such facilities available for free.  I recall that Acorn 
wrote their own black-box testing for the SCL.  Otherwise you pay money 
for an expensive but usefully accurate testsuite.  Normally, I take 
stuff from glibc and hope for the best :-)

More information about the gcc mailing list