This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: "make check" failure in fixincludes
- From: Bruce Korb <bkorb at veritas dot com>
- To: Roger Sayle <roger at eyesopen dot com>, GCC-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Cc: "Loren J. Rittle" <ljrittle at acm dot org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:40:10 -0700
- Subject: Re: "make check" failure in fixincludes
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0409151535230.15143-100000@www.eyesopen.com>
- Reply-to: bkorb at veritas dot com
Roger Sayle wrote:
>
> Hi Loren,
>
> It looks like there's a "make check" failure in fixinclude that's
> possibly related to your 2004-09-13 check-in. Unfortunately, its
> not immediately clear what the problem is...
>
> #if defined( FREEBSD_GCC3_BREAKAGE_CHECK )
> ! #if __GNUC__ == 2 && __GNUC_MINOR__ >= 7
> #endif /* FREEBSD_GCC3_BREAKAGE_CHECK */
> --- 12,14 ----
> #if defined( FREEBSD_GCC3_BREAKAGE_CHECK )
> ! #if __GNUC__ == 2 && __GNUC_MINOR__ >= 7 || __GNUC__ >= 3
> #endif /* FREEBSD_GCC3_BREAKAGE_CHECK */
>
> I'm not sure if there's a bad interaction between the two fixes;
> freebsd_gcc3_breakage_check and freebsd_gcc4_breakage_check?
The "tests/base" tree should be a copy of "tests/res",
whereas this looks like text compared against what one would
find in the "tests/inc" directory. The three directories:
tests/base -- what the files ought to look like after fixing
tests/inc -- constructed-on-the-fly files that need to be fixed
tests/res -- the results of the fix process
The fixinclude developer needs to understand any differences
between tests/base and tests/res. If these differences are valid
(i.e. are expected results of a new fix), then move modified files
from tests/res to tests/base and commit them.
A very simple rule:
DO NOT EVER HAND EDIT FILES IN tests/base !!!
:-)
Regards, Bruce