Scott Moore wrote:
... snip ...
The BSO tests are supposed to be very good at negative testing, ie, they apparently evaluate how good the compiler is at rejecting bad constructs. My ISO tests are very weak at this.
I have been trying, for years in fact, to get an agreement going with Tony Heathrington of Prospero software. They aquired the rights to the BSO test suite, and Tony has been talking for years about giving better price terms now that the BSO test is no longer "mainstream". I would personally like IP Pascal to pass the BSO tests as well, and I think that would be a good goal for GPC. I think you might be able to get that for free considering the nature of GPC, with proper garantees that you won't distribute it.
However, Prospero is not answering their email, and I fear they may be going down for the count.
I have always been rather bitter about this. Those tests were developed and contributed by a cooperative group in the days before issuance of the first standard, and were basically created by examining a section of the draft and devising compliance tests. They were then available for the cost of reproduction, which meant a mag tape back then. When the standard appeared they were revised to match. Tests are numbered to match the standard.
A summary of results on PascalP are recorded in the PascalP manual, available on my site.
The (in my mind) selfish attitude has gained Prospero nothing, and has done a great deal of harm.