This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, c] PR c/48956: diagnostics for conversions involving complex types
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Mikhail Maltsev <maltsevm at gmail dot com>
- Cc: <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 15:54:13 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, c] PR c/48956: diagnostics for conversions involving complex types
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20141229174555 dot 79e9defd at debian-miyuki> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1501300010300 dot 14904 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20150130103841 dot 76a99e02 at debian-miyuki>
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015, Mikhail Maltsev wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 00:15:02 +0000
> Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>
> > > +#if 0
> > > + /* Check needs to be implemented. */
> > > + fuic (-1. + 0.i);
> > > + vuic = -1. + 0.i;
> > > +#endif
> >
> > The #if 0 cases should have a bug filed in Bugzilla to track that
> > certain checks aren't implemented.
>
> Thanks for review. Just one question: should I change the cases under
> #if 0 to XFAIL (after adding a new bug to Bugzilla) or remove them
> completely?
On the whole I think it's best to remove them (include a DejaGnu-formatted
testcase with them in the bug report, if you wish). Then, if those checks
are implemented in future, it would be best for the tests to go in a new
file, so that the file you're adding doesn't change what it's testing.
(In general, it's best to be wary of changing what an existing test tests
after it's added, preferring to add new tests for new features and only
change existing tests if actually required by changes elsewhere, to reduce
the risk of misleading results from regression testers, suggesting that an
existing test has regressed when actually it's something new added to the
same file.)
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com