On Fri, 2017-03-24 at 14:10 -0400, Eric Gallager wrote: > The attached test case failed with gcc 4.9 and older, but started > compiling successfully with only the 1 expected warning with gcc 5. > Adding it to the test suite would ensure that this behavior doesn't > regress.
Thanks for posting this. What's the significance of the leading space in the: #pragma GCC diagnostic pop line? Is *that* the bug? (did we have a bug # for this, I wonder?) > Note that I have only tested it by compiling it manually, and > not by actually running it as part of the entire test suite, so > please > let me know if I got any of the dejagnu directives wrong. When I started contributing to gcc, it took me a while to figure out how to run just one case in the testsuite, so in case it's helpful I'll post the recipe here: 1) Find the pertinent Tcl script that runs the test: a .exp script in the same directory, or one of the ancestors directories. For this case it's gcc.dg/dg.exp. The significant part is the filename: dg.exp 2) Figure out the appropriate "make" target, normally based on the source language for the test. For this case it's "check-gcc" 3) Run make in your BUILDDIR/gcc, passing in a suitable value for RUNTESTFLAGS based on the filename found in step 1 above. For this case, giving it a couple of "-v" flags for verbosity (so that we can see the command-line of the compiler invocation) it would be: $ make -jN && make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="-v -v dg.exp=pragma-diag -7.c" (for some N; I like the "make && make check-FOO" construction to ensure that the compiler is rebuilt before running the tests). ...which leads to a summary of: # of expected passes 3 which looks good. You can also use wildcards e.g.: make -j64 && make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="-v -v dg.exp=pragma-diag-*.c" (and can use -jN on the "make check-FOO" invocation if there are a lot of tests; I tend not to use it for a small number of tests, to avoid interleaving of output in the logs). Thanks, > Eric Gallager > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > 2017-03-24 Eric Gallager <eg...@gwmail.gwu.edu> > > * gcc.dg/pragma-diag-7.c: New test. I tested your new test case via the above approach and it looks good to me. Although we're meant to only be accepting regression fixes and documentation fixes right now (stage 4 of gcc 7 development) I feel that extra test coverage like this also ought to be acceptable. I don't know if the test case is sufficiently small to be exempt from the FSF's paperwork requirements here: https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html (do you have that paperwork in place?) Thanks Dave >
