On Jun 12, 2014, at 7:26 AM, Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 12 June 2014 04:31, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote: >> On Jun 10, 2014, at 3:03 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan >> <ramana....@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> At this point I'm going to wait to see if any of the testsuite >>> maintainers step in and comment >> >> [ ducks ] So, I wasn’t going to comment… If you guys do something really >> stupid, I’ll scream, as hopefully will others. Doing something a little >> misguided I don’t think hurts much. The worst case if you figure out in a >> year or two why it was a bad idea and then fix it, not the end of the world. > > If the execution part is OK and the scan-assembler is questionable, I > can just remove that part (or leave it commented until we decide > otherwise).
Don’t read my comment as stating scanning as being questionable. In fact, scanning is slightly better as one can see the results on a cross easier and faster… for example when someone wants to study a regression they caused and they don’t have the target, they can build to cc1 and then run the test case by hand and see what the scan issues are. If it where an executable test case, they would have to puzzle why the test case is different and understand what they are reading (they might not be familiar with the target).
