C
CBFalconer
David said:I tried a quick google for "Plum Hall IAR", and looked at the
first link:
http://www.plumhall.com/cqs/tr/trackrecord.html
It would appear that IAR is a customer of Plum Hall, as is Red Hat.
That by no means implies that gcc is certified by Plum Hall, but it
does look like they take test suite testing seriously.
Another interesting find from google:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/1998-07/msg00656.html
The problem with the gcc test suite is that it is geared to the gcc
'standard', rather than the ISO standard. A test suite should be
open-source, and there should probably be several of them (with
some commonality), one each for C90, C99, and C0X. The tests
should be clearly tied to the standard. There are several classes
of tests needed, i.e. conformance, detection of errors, and
quality. The last will be controversial.
The unfortunate experience with the Pascal test-suite is a
warning. This was excellent, but handed over to some British firm
(I forget the name) and basically lost. It included portable means
of selecting individual tests, and of running an overall check.
Thus GPL licencing is essential.
The results should be very useful, even when systems fail. For
example, where a compiler is aimed at a PIC many things are simply
not feasible. Running the suite would point out those constructs
to the user, who can then avoid using them. Maybe a sourceforge
project would be appropriate? Such a suite would obviously be poor
at the start, but should mature. The first task would be a method
of organizing the tests. The Pascal suite is an excellent
example. There should be no pressure to include C++ in the
testing, that is an entirely separate issue (and language).
Xposted from comp.arch.embedded to comp.lang.c and comp.std.c