home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- This is a collection of things that test suites have
- said were "wrong" with GCC--but that I don't agree with.
-
- First, test suites sometimes test for compatibility with
- traditional C. GCC with -traditional is not completely
- compatible with traditional C, and in some ways I think it
- should not be.
-
- * K&R C allowed \x to appear in a string literal (or character
- literal?) even in cases where it is *not* followed by a sequence of
- hex digits. I'm not convinced this is desirable.
-
- * K&R compilers allow comments to cross over an inclusion boundary (i.e.
- started in an include file and ended in the including file).
- I think this would be quite ugly and can't imagine it could
- be needed.
-
- Sometimes tests disagree with GCC's interpretation of the ANSI standard.
-
- * One test claims that this function should return 1.
-
- enum {A, B} foo;
-
- func (enum {B, A} arg)
- {
- return B;
- }
-
- I think it should return 0, because the definition of B that
- applies is the one in func.
-
- * Some tests report failure when the compiler does not produce
- an error message for a certain program.
-
- ANSI C requires a "diagnostic" message for certain kinds of invalid
- programs, but a warning counts as a diagnostic. If GCC produces
- a warning but not an error, that is correct ANSI support.
- When test suites call this "failure", the tests are broken.
-
-