Re: Ann: Gcc/GNAT 9.1 released - Test Results

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Simon Wright" <simon@pushface.org> wrote in message 
news:lyk1f0vw11.fsf@pushface.org...
...
> Quite a few of the unsupported tests are so because they deal with the
> consequences of changing the source code and rebuilding. The ACATS
> source for those tests contains multiple copies of some units, which
> results in a gnatchop failure. It'd require a lot of work to fix, and
> for what is essentially an IVP (installation verification procedure)
> seems like overkill.

Note that the (relatively new) ACATS grading tool checks process failures, 
and the GNAT scripting tool available in the submitted tests area handles 
most of these tests properly.

I note that my experience is that there are a lot of B-Tests (on *every* 
compiler that I've checked) that are either in a grey area as to whether 
they have passed or are outright failing. I suspect that's because errors 
creep into supposedly "known good results", and also because without any 
formal verifications it is really easy to decide not to worry about a 
dubious result. (It's also possible that my test procedure didn't exactly 
match the one typically used by the vendor, so some results might differ).

                                         Randy.