From: pjfarley AT dorsai DOT org (Peter J. Farley III)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Rebuilding gcc -- errors in tests (djtst201.zip)
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 19:29:58 GMT
Organization: None
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <3412ffa9.5041987@snews.zippo.com>
References: <199709071444 DOT KAA21429 AT delorie DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: news.newsdawg.com
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
<Snipped>
>gcc knows how to compile *.cc files without extra options.  Perhaps
>you didn't download the C++ libraries and headers?

Sorry, DJ.  My mistake entirely.  The only errors were "implicit
define of function..." in the compile of the file slist.cc.  They were
warnings only, probably due to missing headers.

<Snipped>
>That is only for me, so that I can make sure v2 has at least the same
>functionality as v1.  Note that the next version will no longer have
>this test.

OK, understood.

<Snipped>
>The test programs are for libc developers, so that they have something
>to test with when they modify libc.  It is not an automatic regression
>test.

That explains it.

>> Q1:  Is the compare of "newlibc.arm" and "oldlibc.arm" significant or
>> necessary to the tests?
>
>No.  The other half of that makefile *is* critical.  It guarantees
>that we don't violate the ANSI or POSIX namespace rules.

Understood.

>> Q2:  Is the success in building the .exe files test enough, or is
>> there more that should be done to confirm correct operation?
>
>There is no regression suite for DJGPP.  The tests there are examples
>for libc developers, to assist them in testing the functions.
>
>It would be good to have a real automatic regression suite, but we
>don't.

Something for us to work on, then.

Thanks for the info, DJ.

----------------------------------------------------
Peter J. Farley III (pjfarley AT dorsai DOT org)