On 02/20/2016 09:46 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
We had some regressions in the ability for _Pragma to disable a warning (PR preprocessor/69126, PR preprocessor/69543, PR preprocessor/69558).This patch attempts to add more test coverage for this, for the various combinations of: - various warnings: -Wunused-variable -Wuninitialized -Wdeprecated-declarations - various combinations of location of _Pragma relative to location of the warning: - _Pragma is in a macro, warning isn't a macro - neither is in a macro - _Pragma isnt't in a macro, warning is in a macro - in different macros - both in the same macro - C vs C++ frontend. It adds some XFAILs: - pr69543-1.c for C++ (fixed in the followup patch) - pr69543-3.c for both C and C++ - pr69543-4.c for both C and C++ - pr69558.c for C++ (moving it from gcc.dg to c-c++-common, marking it as xfail for C++ for now) I've also tested the new cases on gcc 5. The only regression we currently have in trunk relative to gcc 5 is c-c++-common/pr69543-1.c lines 19, which the followup patch fixes. Successfully bootstrapped®rtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu in combination with the followup patch. OK for trunk? gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: PR preprocessor/69126 PR preprocessor/69543 PR preprocessor/69558 * c-c++-common/pr69126.c (MACRO_1, test_1): New. (f): Rename to... (test_2): ...this, and add leading comment. (MACRO_3, test_3): New. (MACRO_4A, MACRO_4B, test_4): New. (MACRO): Rename to... (MACRO_5): ...this. (g): Rename to... (test_5): ...this, updating for renaming of MACRO, and add leading comment. * c-c++-common/pr69543-1.c: New. * c-c++-common/pr69543-2.c: New. * c-c++-common/pr69543-3.c: New. * c-c++-common/pr69543-4.c: New. * c-c++-common/pr69558-1.c: New. * c-c++-common/pr69558-2.c: New. * c-c++-common/pr69558-3.c: New. * c-c++-common/pr69558-4.c: New. * gcc.dg/pr69558.c: Move to... * c-c++-common/pr69558.c: ...here. Add dg-bogus directives, with xfail for c++.
Yes, this is fine for the trunk. jeff
