<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><br><div><div>On Oct 16, 2014, at 1:29 PM, Chandler Carruth <<a href="mailto:chandlerc@google.com">chandlerc@google.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Richard Smith <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:richard@metafoo.co.uk" target="_blank">richard@metafoo.co.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_extra">I suspect that: (a) the ones we want to run in all modes is "all tests, unless otherwise specified",</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm not sure why. CodeGen certainly doesn't seem very interesting here?</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_extra"> and (b) it is too expensive to do so by default (it would increase our testing time by probably around 4x).</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm not sure it would.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><br></div><div>The question isn’t the absolute amount of time it adds, the question is whether the added time is paid for by additional bugs found. I can’t imagine that testing all tests as C11 and C99 would find many bugs. The standards are too similar, and therefore doing this by default would just be a waste of testing time.</div><div><br></div><div>-Chris</div><br></body></html>