|
|
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.