Re: [distcc] gcc bootstraps with distcc

[Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk>]

Alexandre Oliva wrote:-

> Hmm...  Looks like I was mistaken.  I'm told my patch introduces this
> regression:
> 
> FAIL: gcc.dg/cpp/spacing1.c scan-file g "1 2" bam baz
> 
> I must have used an incorrect baseline set of results, sorry :-(
> 
> I see this failure in my post-patch results, but I also see it in my
> baseline.  Ouch.  I must have used a patched tree as a baseline, sorry
> :-(
> 
> Ok, so...  This test is not in agreement with the new strategy of
> letting line breaks encountered within an argument list through before
> the macro expansion.  Ok to adjust the testsuite such that it passes,
> or should we change both definitions of cb_line_change() such that the
> test passes again, as is?  I *suppose* simply reintroducing the test
> based on parsing_args in c-ppoutput.c, and copying it to c-lex.c,
> would restore results, but it might require tweaking the testsuite all
> over to cope with line-number changes in error messages.

Please revert until you can establish that the testsuite case is
not there for a good reason.

Neil.