https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93763
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Really depends on the original source, but e.g. if the original testcase
doesn't have any warnings, then it would be better for the reduction script to
avoid introducing new warnings (so for start don't use -w in there). Sometimes
trying to avoid e.g. introducing -Wmaybe-uninitialized warnings or similar
might prevent reduction of the testcase into something short.
Sometimes you might just want to attempt avoiding introduction of a small
selected subset of warnings, e.g. punt on (for C):
warning: data definition has no type or storage class
warning: no semicolon at end of struct or union
-Wimplicit-int
-Wimplicit-function-declaration
-Wincompatible-pointer-types
And of course, when the testcase is reduced without that, whomever creates a
patch where it adds those into the testsuite, it should be tested; if one
tweaks the test after performing a bootstrap/regtest, it might be enough to do
make check-gcc check-c++-all RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix\{-m32,-m64\}
dg.exp=pr12345*"
style testing just to make sure the test actually passes.
