|
|
1.1 ! root 1: This is a collection of things that test suites have ! 2: said were "wrong" with GCC--but that I don't agree with. ! 3: ! 4: First, test suites sometimes test for compatibility with ! 5: traditional C. GCC with -traditional is not completely ! 6: compatible with traditional C, and in some ways I think it ! 7: should not be. ! 8: ! 9: * K&R C allowed \x to appear in a string literal (or character ! 10: literal?) even in cases where it is *not* followed by a sequence of ! 11: hex digits. I'm not convinced this is desirable. ! 12: ! 13: * K&R compilers allow comments to cross over an inclusion boundary (i.e. ! 14: started in an include file and ended in the including file). ! 15: I think this would be quite ugly and can't imagine it could ! 16: be needed. ! 17: ! 18: Sometimes tests disagree with GCC's interpretation of the ANSI standard. ! 19: ! 20: * One test claims that this function should return 1. ! 21: ! 22: enum {A, B} foo; ! 23: ! 24: func (enum {B, A} arg) ! 25: { ! 26: return B; ! 27: } ! 28: ! 29: I think it should return 0, because the definition of B that ! 30: applies is the one in func. ! 31: ! 32: * Some tests report failure when the compiler does not produce ! 33: an error message for a certain program. ! 34: ! 35: ANSI C requires a "diagnostic" message for certain kinds of invalid ! 36: programs, but a warning counts as a diagnostic. If GCC produces ! 37: a warning but not an error, that is correct ANSI support. ! 38: When test suites call this "failure", the tests are broken. ! 39:
This archive runs on limited infrastructure. Preserving old code on modern bandwidth. Automated agents are requested to crawl responsibly.