RFC: Monitoring old PRs, new dg directives
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.
>> 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.
More information about the Gcc-patches