This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [C++ Patch] PR 37087 (take 2)
2008/8/12 Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com>:
> Hi,
>
> [snip interesting explanation]
>
>> If GCC diagnostics are going to improve we have to be more
>> aware of unintended regressions. So please, spread the word and take a
>> look at other peoples patches.
>
> Ok, I'll do that. But really, if I understand correctly your explanation, adding explicitly "error:" in the expected message when we have available in principle dg-error and dg-warning seems very silly, long term.
Not really. If I explained myself correctly you should understand that
short term those markers are the only way to tell errors and warnings
apart. Long term, once the C++ testsuite is fixed, it is
straightforward to do:
find ${ROOT} -name '*.svn*' -prune -o -type f -print \
| xargs sed -r -i 's/(dg-warning[^\n]+)[wW]arning:[ ]*/\1/'
and remove them. In fact, once the testsuite is fixed it would be safe
to do this:
find ${ROOT} -name '*.svn*' -prune -o -type f -print \
| xargs sed -r -i 's/dg-warning([^\n]+)[eE]rror:[ ]*/dg-error\1/'
> Another thought: should a summary of your explanation also go in the wiki, under "HowToPrepareATestcase"?
Hmmm, I think it would be great if you could write it in your own
words and I review it for correctness. Is that ok?
Thanks,
Manuel.