Re: [distcc] gcc bootstraps with distcc

[Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>]

On Aug  3, 2003, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Aug  3, 2003, Neil Booth <neil@daikokuya.co.uk> wrote:
>> I don't agree this patch is correct.

> Then we'll have to fix the integrated preprocessor to do whatever you
> consider to be correct.  This patch only arranges for the separate 
> preprocessor to match what the integrated one does as far as the
> compiler computes the line of a declaration.

>> Does this pass the testsuite without modification?

> Of course.  The testsuite doesn't test for separate preprocessing.  If
> it did, it would have flagged the differences that the integrated
> preprocessor introduced.

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 let me know which approach to take to fix the problem.  Again,
apologies for my mistake.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                 aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist                Professional serial bug killer