This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [C++ Patch] deprecation of access declarations


On Dec 30, 2011, at 10:18 AM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
> 2011/12/30 Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>:
>> Why // { dg-warning "" } deprecated on some tests, and
>> // { dg-warning "deprecated" } on others?  I would think all of the could
>> use the second form.
> 
> I was believing that "// { dg-warning "" } deprecated" was the way to
> test a warning in old-deja. If we can use the modern deja-gnu syntax
> in old-deja, that's great, I would be much less reluctant to adjust
> the tests there ;-)

So, I'm wondering why it was done this way originally:

r66317 | mmitchel | 2003-04-30 19:02:59 -0700 (Wed, 30 Apr 2003) | 10 lines

        * lib/g++-dg.exp (g++-dg-test): Add "repo" option.
        (dg-gpp-additional-sources): New function.
        (dg-gpp-additional-files): Likewise.
        * lib/g++.exp (additional_sources): New variable.
        (additional_files): Likewise.
        (g++_target_compile): Deal with them.
        * lib/old-dejagnu.exp: Remove.
        * g++.old-deja/old-deja.exp: Use dg.exp, not old-dejagnu.exp.
        * g++.old-deja: Revise all tests to use dg commands.


-  static int S1;               // ERROR - uses same name 9.3                    
+  static int S1;               // { dg-error "" } uses same name 9.3            


and not:

-  static int S1;               // ERROR - uses same name 9.3                    
+  static int S1;               // { dg-error "uses same name 9.3" }

?  Mark, you recall?


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]