Re: 26_numerics/c99_classification_macros_c.cc

[Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>]

Loren James Rittle <rittle@latour.rsch.comm.mot.com> writes:

> We are not dg- experts over here but having been the last to dink with
> it: The test is supposed to be compiled everywhere but fail on
> *-*-linux-gnu (when glibc supports C99 macros) and *-*-freebsd5* (when
> libc supports C99 macros).  The exact failures were not worth marking
> thus we added the generic dg-excess-errors.  BTW, I think I tried
> removing the xfail from the dg-do compile line and/or the
> dg-excess-errors but it doesn't work quite the way we wanted unless
> both marks remained (I'd admit that I read DG docs but the above was
> trial-and-error after fixing up other library maintainers attempt).

In light of what you say, I think the existing markup is correct.

> BTW, I concur that it is XPASSing on ref5 (freebsd5).  That is a
> strange regression since when I run the test case after the compiler
> is fully installed, it produces the "expected" diagnostic output.
...

So what I understand you to be saying is that the test still fails
(as expected) on freebsd5, but for some reason PCH is making it
succeed when it shouldn't.

Why is the test failing in the first place?  I confess I don't
understand what it is trying to test.

zw