RFC: Monitoring old PRs, new dg directives

Nathan Sidwell nathan@acm.org
Wed Aug 5 15:03:08 GMT 2020

On 8/4/20 8:54 PM, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 03:33:23PM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
>> I think the read of the room is that people think it would be generally useful, so let approve the general plan.
> Cool.
>> So, now we are down to the fine details.  Please do see just how far you can stretch the existing mechanisms to cover what you need to do.  I think the existing mechanisms should be able to cover it all; but the devil is in the details and those matter.
> At this point I'm only proposing one new directive, dg-ice.  I think we can't
> really do without it.  The other one was a matter of convenience.

I've realized I have a concern.  Grepping (or searching in an editor 
buffer) the log file for 'internal compiler error' to find actual 
regressions is a thing I want to still be able to do (perhaps with 
alternative spelling, I don't care).  I don't want to see the ICEs of 
tests that are expected to ICE.

I think that means there has to be a positive marker on the unexpected 
ICEs, rather than lack of an expected marker on them.


Nathan Sidwell

More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list