On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 04:48:36PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 03:43:11PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > Great!
> >
> > But could this patch be responsible with some dg-error related
> > test errors on s390x that are present with current HEAD? E.g.
> > (Sorry for the linebreaks that vim has inserted).
>
> Very unlikely. Are you sure it appeared only today and not more than 2
> weeks ago with
> PR middle-end/77475
> * toplev.c (process_options): Temporarily set input_location
> to UNKNOWN_LOCATION around targetm.target_option.override () call.
> change (also mine)? All such dg-error lines need to be changed to use
> line number 0 (i.e. expect the errors not to be on the first line of the
> source which makes no sense, but without any source location, as the errors
> appear on the command line, not in any sources).
Yeah, thanks a lot for pointing this out, that's the right fix.
Saved me bisecting this.
> > So, the test expects an error:
> >
> > /* { dg-error "arguments to .-mhotpatch=n,m. should be non-negative
> > integers" "" { target *-*-* } 1 } */
>
> So it should be
> /* { dg-error "arguments to .-mhotpatch=n,m. should be non-negative
> integers" "" { target *-*-* } 0 } */
> instead.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
