On 3/24/17, David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> wrote: > 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?) >
It prints a warning without it, which would be entirely correct of it to do: /Users/ericgallager/gcc-git/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pragma-diag-7.c:8:2: warning: suggest hiding #pragma from traditional C with an indented # [-Wtraditional] #pragma GCC diagnostic pop ^ I only wanted the test case to be testing for the warnings about suffixes; another warning about the pragma would just be noise, albeit correct noise. > >> 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. Okay, I tried this, and I also got: # of expected passes 3 too, so that's 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. It's okay to save it for next stage 1, I'm already submitting it later than I intended to, so extra waiting won't hurt. > > 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 Yes, I dropped off my copyright assignment at the FSF in December, but I don't have commit access yet though. Thanks, Eric
