31 GCC regressions, 4 new, with your patch on 2002-05-22T05:55:52Z.

Geoff Keating geoffk@geoffk.org
Wed May 22 19:26:00 GMT 2002


> Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 23:55:07 +0100
> From: Neil Booth <neil@daikokuya.demon.co.uk>

> GCC regression checker wrote:-
> 
> > With your recent patch, GCC has some regression test failures, which
> > used to pass.  There are 4 new failures, and 27
> > failures that existed before and after that patch; 0 failures
> > have been fixed.
> > 
> > The new failures are:
> > powerpc-eabisim objc.sum objc.dg/const-str-2.m
> > mips-elf objc.sum objc.dg/const-str-2.m
> > native gdb.sum gdb.threads/linux-dp.exp:
> > native objc.sum objc.dg/const-str-2.m
> 
> This fixes the objc failures (I have no idea at all what the
> debug failure is.  If it's my patch I guess it's the same kind
> of thing).  My patch causes the compiler to stop compiling if
> there are any errors by the time the command line options have
> been parsed.  This test seems to test for a command-line error,
> but to have needed to catch some other random issue that used
> to happen too.
> 
> OK Stan?
> 
> Neil.

I bet the original problem is that the objc frontend was using the
parser to parse the argument, and then got confused when there was no
argument.  But that's only a guess...

> testsuite:
> 	* objc.dg/const-str-2.m: Update now that we stop after
> 	a command line error.
> 
> Index: objc.dg/const-str-2.m
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/objc.dg/const-str-2.m,v
> retrieving revision 1.2
> diff -u -p -r1.2 const-str-2.m
> --- objc.dg/const-str-2.m	7 Feb 2002 09:08:25 -0000	1.2
> +++ objc.dg/const-str-2.m	22 May 2002 22:47:08 -0000
> @@ -3,8 +3,3 @@
>  /* { dg-options "-fconstant-string-class" } */
>  
>  { dg-error "no class name specified as argument to -fconstant-string-class" "" { target *-*-* } 0 }
> -
> -void foo () {}
> -
> -/* Seem bogus, should investigate some day.  */
> -/* { dg-error "parse error" "" { target *-*-* } 5 } */
> 

Um, did you really want to delete the 'void foo ()' line?  It should
make no difference...

-- 
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> <geoffk@redhat.com>



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list