[Info-vax] Open Source on OpenVMS - need some feedback

[Dirk Munk]

John Reagan wrote:
> On Friday, January 2, 2015 8:15:58 AM UTC-5, Dirk Munk wrote:
>> Craig A. Berry wrote:
>>> On 1/1/15 12:43 PM, BillPedersen wrote:
>>>> Happy New Year to everyone, first.
>>>
>>>> VMS Software Inc. is looking for some feedback as to C99 features
>>>> missing/broken in current C compiler.  Also looking for feedback on
>>>> missing/broken CRTL functions.  Please feel free to submit
>>>> information to me and I will forward to VSI.
>>>
>>> While collecting feedback is good, there is really no substitute for
>>> passing a conformance test suite. The following turned up in a quick
>>> search; it looks like the good ones cost money. I know nothing about
>>> these, but I'll note that a prior version of the first one (from
>>> Perennial) was used to certify C89 compliance for DEC C on Digital UNIX.
>>>
>>> <http://www.peren.com/index.htm>
>>>
>>> <http://www.plumhall.com/stec1.html>
>>>
>>> <http://www.ace.nl/compiler/supertest.html>
>>>
>>> The following appear quite incomplete but are free:
>>>
>>> <http://posixtest.sourceforge.net>
>>>
>>> <http://p99.gforge.inria.fr/p99-html/test-p99-conformance_8c-example.html>
>>
>> I agree, a conformance test suite is what you need. The last thing we
>> need is a C compiler with bugs.
>>
>> I looked at the first three test suites, and I noticed that Perennial is
>> the only one that also supports the new C11 (2011) and C++ 2014 standards.
>
> We have suites (and will get more), but besides the standards C99/C11/C++11/etc, there are other things in the headers from various POSIX standards. I'm just trying to collect input on things that could be better/faster/newer.
>

I'm not a C expert (far from it), but wouldn't the test suites also 
reveal missing Posix headers or missing items in the Posix headers?