Stewart Gordon wrote:
> Ant wrote:
> <snip>
> 
>>> http://www.wikiservice.at/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?PendingPeeves
>>
>>
>>
>> Can't you do better then that?
>> The quality of it is very low.
>>
>> 1 - Walter expressly said he didn't want bug lists
>> 2 - points to all sorts of less then relevant discussions
> 
> 
> I don't see what you mean.  Please be specific.

I think Ant is remembering it wrong.

Walter has said that's he's not going to have an official list of bugs:
"I published a carefully documented bug list once in the past. It was a
disaster." (http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?D/23404)

I don't think he minds it if we keep unofficial bug lists.

> 
> Stewart.



-- 
Justin (a/k/a jcc7)
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/

J C Calvarese wrote:

> I think Ant is remembering it wrong.
> 
> Walter has said that's he's not going to have an official list of bugs:
> "I published a carefully documented bug list once in the past. It was a
> disaster." (http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?D/23404)
> 
> I don't think he minds it if we keep unofficial bug lists.

Also, Thomas Kühne is doing an excellent job by keeping an
*automated* bug list in the form of the Dstress test suite:

http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/www/dstress.html

That makes it easy to test that old bugs hasn't "resurfaced",
as they have a tendancy to do if not properly pesticided...

--anders

Anders F Björklund wrote:
> J C Calvarese wrote:
> 
>> I think Ant is remembering it wrong.
>>
>> Walter has said that's he's not going to have an official list of bugs:
>> "I published a carefully documented bug list once in the past. It was a
>> disaster." (http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?D/23404)
>>
>> I don't think he minds it if we keep unofficial bug lists.
> 
> 
> Also, Thomas Kühne is doing an excellent job by keeping an
> *automated* bug list in the form of the Dstress test suite:
> 
> http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/www/dstress.html
> 
> That makes it easy to test that old bugs hasn't "resurfaced",
> as they have a tendancy to do if not properly pesticided...

If unittests were applied as advertized, then any error would result
in one ore more unittests written, that would effectively hinder the
errors to return.

Helmut Leitner wrote:

>> That makes it easy to test that old bugs hasn't "resurfaced",
>> as they have a tendancy to do if not properly pesticided...
> 
> If unittests were applied as advertized, then any error would result
> in one ore more unittests written, that would effectively hinder the
> errors to return.

Dstress is such a unittest, for the compiler itself...

(Thomas has added all kinds of conformance tests,
as well as various bugs reported on the D forums)

All the tests are available at:
http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/


The built-in unittest{} is also useful for testing code,
as of DMD 0.108 the following seems to have such tests:

> phobos/internal/adi.d
> phobos/internal/arraycast.d
> phobos/internal/gc/gcbits.d
> phobos/internal/qsort.d
> phobos/internal/switch.d
> phobos/std/base64.d
> phobos/std/c/linux/linux.d
> phobos/std/conv.d
> phobos/std/ctype.d
> phobos/std/dateparse.d
> phobos/std/format.d
> phobos/std/math.d
> phobos/std/math2.d
> phobos/std/md5.d
> phobos/std/outbuffer.d
> phobos/std/path.d
> phobos/std/perf.d
> phobos/std/random.d
> phobos/std/recls.d
> phobos/std/regexp.d
> phobos/std/socket.d
> phobos/std/stream.d
> phobos/std/string.d
> phobos/std/thread.d
> phobos/std/uri.d
> phobos/std/utf.d
> phobos/std/windows/registry.d
> phobos/std/zlib.d

At least, that is what running a quick "grep" told me :-)


I am not sure if either of the testsuites is run before releases,
think that Walter has some kind of internal test program for DMD ?

GDC has a "make unittest", but I've not been able to make that
run, and it doesn't seem to like the GCC "make check-d" either ?

--anders