This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [C++ Patch] PR 35321
2008/8/17 Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com>:
> Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>>
>> I am sorry for being so picky...
>
> Just wanted to clearly explain that whereas I have nothing in principle
> against your various forms of "picky-ness" - assuming of course they make
> sense and can be followed reasonably easily, as in this case, I think - I
> consider rather strange that nobody speak up before, you included. That is
> confusing. In the case at issue, for example, I wanted to remain consistent
> with the *existing* two other testcases in this area.
I noticed all these issues when trying to fix PR25241 and PR30612.
When you look at the way dg-error works, you notice the problems with
the current testcases. Also, when fixing diagnostics PRs I noticed
that updating testcases is always less error prone if the message is
as complete as possible.
> Again, if you, and the other C++ maintainers, have special new directions
> about the form of the dg-error strings, please state the requirements
> clearly, once and for all, and add it at least to wiki, or, better, to the
> html pages for contributors.
I am not a C++ maintainer, so I am not sure whether they are aware of
the current limitations (namely, the above PRs) of the C++ testsuite.
I think most of the tests assume that '.' does not match a newline,
dg-error matches an error and dg-warning matches a warning.
Unfortunately, this has never been the case.
Cheers,
Manuel.