From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!gegeweb.org!news.ecp.fr!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Bug or feature? Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 13:30:41 -0500 Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation Message-ID: References: <50562e0a-3dfa-44c4-9aaa-70cbe304b54b@googlegroups.com> <40c7405d-c4c2-4163-a430-01052b769866@googlegroups.com> <049c868a-e930-4e5d-a96a-611542cd1ce6@googlegroups.com> <224148c3-2a31-4f3e-a3a3-0a588773798b@googlegroups.com> <5374819a$0$6696$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1400178641 23582 69.95.181.76 (15 May 2014 18:30:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 18:30:41 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:19851 Date: 2014-05-15T13:30:41-05:00 List-Id: "Georg Bauhaus" wrote in message news:5374819a$0$6696$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net... > On 14/05/14 23:48, Randy Brukardt wrote: >> To compile ACATS tests in GNAT, I have to use a small boatload of >> options: >> >> gnatmake >> C457003.adb -eS -gnat12 -O0 -gnatE -gnato -gnatv -gnatws -gnatd7 -bargs - >> T0 > > Would it be meaningful when testing any compiler, to include > the optimizers typically used when translating production code? > -O2 seems commonly used with GNAT. I picked these options originally because they were the ones used during the latest formal conformity assessment of GNAT. (I've since modified them a bit on the advice of the AdaCore ACATS test person.) That's the only set of options that anyone ever guaranteed actually met the Standard. One would expect that internally, AdaCore tests other sets of options as well. Optimization is sometimes a problem, as really powerful optimizers can sometimes eliminate or invalidate ACATS tests. ACATS tests have been repaired to avoid optimization effects, but its a never-ending game of whack-a-mole. (As optimizers get better, new problems emerge, which require still more test repairs, etc.) In addition, some optimization modes probably aren't standards-conformant. (For instance, Janus/Ada has a mode where all objects are assumed to be in range. This matches our Ada 83 compiler, but it's not correct for Ada 95 and later.) For Janus/Ada, I run 3 different sets of optimization options, combined with 3 different language settings. But that's for in-house use only; a formal conformity assessment would be done with the optimization off. The in-house goal is to minimize failures with the optimizer on but there are a few failures that are effectively unfixable, so I doubt it would ever be perfect. Randy.