C99 test suite ?

[oksid]

Hello,

I'm writing a C99 preprocessor and I want to check its
compliance with the ISO standard.

I would like to know what's the best C99 test suite ?
GCC seems to have a large set of test files. Is there
something better available ?

Thanks in advance,
Jean-Marc Lienher

[Eric Sosman]

oksid wrote:

Hello,

I'm writing a C99 preprocessor and I want to check its
compliance with the ISO standard.

I would like to know what's the best C99 test suite ?
GCC seems to have a large set of test files. Is there
something better available ?

Jacob Navia has published his C99 test suite in the
currently-raging thread "C99 portability challenge." You'll
have to make up your own mind about whether his conformance
test is "better" than others you've found.

--
Er*********@sun .com

[jacob navia]

Eric Sosman wrote:

oksid wrote:

>Hello,

I'm writing a C99 preprocessor and I want to check its
compliance with the ISO standard.

I would like to know what's the best C99 test suite ?
GCC seems to have a large set of test files. Is there
something better available ?

Jacob Navia has published his C99 test suite in the
currently-raging thread "C99 portability challenge." You'll
have to make up your own mind about whether his conformance
test is "better" than others you've found.

This is not true, as you well know. Nowhere did I
say that it is a "conformanc e suite".

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[Eric Sosman]

jacob navia wrote:

Eric Sosman wrote:

>oksid wrote:

>>Hello,

I'm writing a C99 preprocessor and I want to check its
compliance with the ISO standard.

I would like to know what's the best C99 test suite ?
GCC seems to have a large set of test files. Is there
something better available ?

Jacob Navia has published his C99 test suite in the
currently-raging thread "C99 portability challenge." You'll
have to make up your own mind about whether his conformance
test is "better" than others you've found.

This is not true, as you well know. Nowhere did I
say that it is a "conformanc e suite".

While it's true you didn't use the word "conformanc e" at
all, you did advertise the program as being able to "test"
whether a particular system did or did not have a C99 compiler.
Since a compiler is not a C99 compiler unless it conforms to
the C99 standard, any such test would necessarily need to be
a conformance test. Here's the syllogism:

Major premise: A test that indicates whether a given
compiler does or does not support C99 is a C99 conformance
test.

Minor premise: In JN's opinion, his program tests whether a
given compiler does or does not support C99.

Conclusion: Therefore, in JN's opinion his program is a C99
conformance test.

Q.E.D.

Perhaps if you'd spent a few moments pondering the difficulty
of the test you proposed to make, you'd have been less hasty to
make the attempt.

--
Eric Sosman
es*****@ieee-dot-org.invalid

[Richard Heathfield]

Eric Sosman said:

jacob navia wrote:

>Eric Sosman wrote:

<snip>

>> Jacob Navia has published his C99 test suite in the
currently-raging thread "C99 portability challenge." You'll
have to make up your own mind about whether his conformance
test is "better" than others you've found.

This is not true, as you well know. Nowhere did I
say that it is a "conformanc e suite".

While it's true you didn't use the word "conformanc e" at
all, you did advertise the program as being able to "test"
whether a particular system did or did not have a C99 compiler.

Right. The most relevant wording, it seems, is this: "My basic idea is to
see which systems do not have a compiler that supports standard C."

<snip>

Perhaps if you'd spent a few moments pondering the difficulty
of the test you proposed to make, you'd have been less hasty to
make the attempt.

For one thing, the program does not demonstrate the "broken" VLA semantics
of gcc.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999