FSF GCC version 2.7.2

1 files changed, 39 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/gnu/usr.bin/gcc/TESTS.FLUNK b/gnu/usr.bin/gcc/TESTS.FLUNK
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..04641e3c8fb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gnu/usr.bin/gcc/TESTS.FLUNK
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+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.
+