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: [testsuite] Require ucn support in gdc.test/compilable/ddoc12.d (PR d/88039)


Hi Iain,

> On Sat, 1 Dec 2018 at 19:28, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@gdcproject.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 15:12, Rainer Orth <ro@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Iain,
>> >
>> > > On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 at 20:32, Rainer Orth
>> > > <ro@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> Hi Mike,
>> > >>
>> > >> > On Nov 27, 2018, at 2:18 AM, Rainer Orth <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
>> > >> > wrote:
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Some assemblers, including the Solaris one, don't support UTF-8
>> > >> >> identifiers, which breaks the gdc.test/compilable/ddoc12.d testcase as
>> > >> >> reported in the PR.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > So, another style of fix, would be to change the binding from the
>> > >> > language
>> > >> > front-end to encode unsupported symbols using a fixed, documented, abi
>> > >> > defined technique.
>> > >>
>> > >> there's been some discussion on this in the PR.  Joseph's suggestion was
>> > >> to follow the system compilers if this were done, and indeed they do
>> > >> encode UTF-8 identifiers in some way which could either be
>> > >> reverse-engineered or a spec obtained.  However, given Iain's stance
>> > >> towards UTF-8 identifiers in D, I very much doubt this is worth the
>> > >> effort.  Ultimately, it's his call, of course.
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > Not only my stance, but as a whole just how those maintaining the core
>> > > language generally agree on. Encoding UTF8 characters in symbols is
>> > > not part of the D ABI, so that is something that needs convincing
>> > > upstream.
>> > >
>> > > There is a third way however, all compilable/ddoc* tests don't
>> > > actually require us to compile the module all the way down to object
>> > > code, the only thing that really needs to be tested is the Ddoc
>> > > generator itself.  Which would be setting 'dg-do-what compile' and
>> > > build with the compiler option -fdoc, then dg-final checks for the
>> > > presence of the file ddoc12.html is the minimum that needs to be done
>> > > for these tests to be considered passed.
>> > >
>> > > I'll have a look into doing it that way tomorrow.
>> >
>> > that would be even better of course, also saving some testing time.
>> >
>>
>> Hi Rainer,
>>
>> Attached patch for it, I've checked that and it does the right thing
>> and passes on x86_64.
>>
>> There's a couple more changes than just testsuite files, as compiling
>> with -fdoc unearthed bug fixes not backported from the D version of
>> the compiler.  These I'll apply separately.
>>
>
> D2 front-end and testsuite changes have been upstreamed/downstreamed.
> If there's no complaint, I'll apply the dejagnu fix as well.

not at all: I've checked it on i386-pc-solaris2.11/gas and
sparc-sun-solaris2.12/as and compilable/ddoc12.d now PASSes on both, so
the gdc-test.exp part is ok.  Please mention PR d/88039 in the
ChangeLog.

Thanks.
        Rainer

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University


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