RFC: Monitoring old PRs, new dg directives

Mike Stump mikestump@comcast.net
Wed Aug 5 20:01:32 GMT 2020


On Aug 4, 2020, at 5:54 PM, Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com> wrote:
>> As you find it difficult to express a test using the existing mechanisms, let's talk about those and see if anyone has a good idea on how to express it.  I think ICEs are the most annoying to manage, but, I think excess and prune should be able to handle them.  I think should get an error or warning, or should not get an error or warning are more trivial to manage.
> 
> I experimented with
> // { dg-prune-output ".*internal compiler error.*" }
> // { dg-xfail-if "" { *-*-* } }
> but it's a mouthful and the results were poor (when the ICE is fixed but we
> generate errors instead).  dg-ice is convenient, handles even the different
> kind of ICE (when the diagnostic routines were re-entered), and generates
> nice XPASSes when the ICE goes away.
> 
> I've also played games with dg-regexp but it was too ugly.
> 
> (I honestly don't see why new directives are such a big deal, if they're
> properly documented.)

I don't see a bogus here?  I think that can't be skipped.


More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list