This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Compat testsuite improvement (part #1)
- From: Janis Johnson <janis187 at us dot ibm dot com>
- To: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:53:24 -0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Compat testsuite improvement (part #1)
- References: <200401190953.19583.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> <87ad4jrgux.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com>
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 09:24:54AM -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > As discussed privately with Janis, this patch is the first part of the
> > changes needed to be able to run the compat testsuite against non-GNU C99
> > compilers with meaningful results. It adds SKIP_COMPLEX_INT, SKIP_ATTRIBUTE
> > and SKIP_ZERO_ARRAY guards against non-C99 tests and turns SKIPVA into
> > SKIP_VA for the sake of consistency. The second part will deal with the
> > dejagnu machinery in order to simplify the commands for enabling these
> > guards.
> >
> > Tested against the Sun ONE Studio 8 compiler (SKIP_COMPLEX_INT,
> > SKIP_ATTRIBUTE, SKIP_ZERO_ARRAY defined) with no compilation/link failures.
> >
> > OK for mainline?
>
> Yes please.
>
> Another compatibility issue I have personally tripped over: HP's acc
> accepts "float _Complex" but not "_Complex float" (same for double,
> long double). I think this is a bug in acc, but it would be nice to
> work around it.
This is another issue I lost track of. Is "float _Complex" more commonly
accepted than "_Complex float"? These tests are for functionality, not
syntax, so they can use whatever is most common, or else use a macro that
can be replaced for other compilers.
I'm also planning to fix the complex constant values used in these tests
so they don't use the Fortran syntax which is a comma expression in C.
Janis