Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!seismo!mcnc!gatech!gitpyr!thomps
From: thomps@gitpyr.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Comparison of C Compiler Implementations
Message-ID: <3085@gitpyr.gatech.EDU>
Date: Thu, 12-Feb-87 07:16:26 EST
Article-I.D.: gitpyr.3085
Posted: Thu Feb 12 07:16:26 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Feb-87 19:49:16 EST
References: <4631@ut-ngp.UUCP> <1236@spp2.UUCP>
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 22
Summary: standard

In article <1236@spp2.UUCP>, jeff@spp2.UUCP (Jeff Hull) writes:
> In article <4631@ut-ngp.UUCP> (Keith Pyle) pyle@ut-ngp.UUCP writes:
> >
> We sure do need such a list.  We also need a good compiler validation
> suite.  One that tries all the features of a language and reports on how
> the compiler handled them.  And the results from that when run against all
> the popular compilers.
> 
A validation suite requires something to validate against. Currently there
exists no standard C language. Kernighan and Ritchie might be called a
standard by some but it was not intended to be and does not rigorously
define the language. I expect C validation suites will become common 
after the ANSI standard is published.

As it is, what would you validate against.


-- 
Ken Thompson (No not that Ken Thompson) 
Georgia Tech Research Institute
Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!thomps