OK, thanks.
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> In make check-c++-all I've noticed some UNSUPPORTED tests and some
> failures, the following patch attempts to fix those.
> The failures are due to new not emitting operator new (...) != NULL
> comparison with -std=c++17 anymore, so there is nothing to fold away
> (first 2 hunks). The rest is about tests which are dg-do run, but
> for -std=c++17 and above contain dg-error and thus the execution test
> part is UNSUPPORTED.
>
> Regtested with make check-c++-all on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for
> trunk?
>
> 2017-09-19 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
>
> * g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr31146-2.C: Only do scan-tree-dump for c++14_down.
> * g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr41428.C: Likewise.
> * g++.dg/expr/bool1.C: Only do dg-do compile instead of dg-do run for
> c++17 and up.
> * g++.dg/expr/bool3.C: Likewise.
> * g++.dg/expr/bitfield5.C: Likewise.
> * g++.old-deja/g++.jason/bool5.C: Likewise.
>
> --- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr41428.C.jj 2015-05-29 15:04:33.000000000
> +0200
> +++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr41428.C 2017-09-19 14:23:13.366127516
> +0200
> @@ -11,4 +11,6 @@ int foo(void)
> return *(int *)&f;
> }
>
> -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "Folded into: if \\\(1 != 0\\\)" "ccp1" } } */
> +/* -std=c++17 and above doesn't emit operator new () != NULL, so there is
> + nothing to fold anymore. */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "Folded into: if \\\(1 != 0\\\)" "ccp1" {
> target c++14_down } } } */
> --- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr31146-2.C.jj 2016-09-21
> 08:54:09.000000000 +0200
> +++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr31146-2.C 2017-09-19 14:23:41.675773292
> +0200
> @@ -20,4 +20,6 @@ double foo (void)
> return v.a[2];
> }
>
> -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "Replaced .* != 0B. with .1" "forwprop1" } }
> */
> +/* -std=c++17 and above doesn't emit operator new () != NULL, so there is
> + nothing to fold anymore. */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "Replaced .* != 0B. with .1" "forwprop1" {
> target c++14_down } } } */
> --- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/expr/bool1.C.jj 2017-09-15 18:11:05.000000000
> +0200
> +++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/expr/bool1.C 2017-09-19 14:16:46.139972669 +0200
> @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
> -// { dg-do run }
> -// PR C++/29295
> +// PR c++/29295
> +// { dg-do run { target c++14_down } }
> +// { dg-do compile { target c++17 } }
> // make sure that a typedef for a bool will have the
> // the same results as a bool itself.
>
> --- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/expr/bool3.C.jj 2017-09-15 18:11:05.000000000
> +0200
> +++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/expr/bool3.C 2017-09-19 14:16:40.439044001 +0200
> @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
> -// { dg-do run }
> -// PR C++/29295
> +// PR c++/29295
> +// { dg-do run { target c++14_down } }
> +// { dg-do compile { target c++17 } }
> // make sure that a typedef for a bool will have the
> // the same results as a bool itself.
>
> --- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/expr/bitfield5.C.jj 2017-09-15 18:11:05.000000000
> +0200
> +++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/expr/bitfield5.C 2017-09-19 14:12:40.087051397
> +0200
> @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
> // PR c++/30274
> -// { dg-do run }
> +// { dg-do run { target c++14_down } }
> +// { dg-do compile { target c++17 } }
>
> struct S {
> bool x : 4;
> --- gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.jason/bool5.C.jj 2017-09-15
> 18:11:08.000000000 +0200
> +++ gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.jason/bool5.C 2017-09-19
> 14:17:19.708552643 +0200
> @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
> -// { dg-do run }
> +// { dg-do run { target c++14_down } }
> +// { dg-do compile { target c++17 } }
> int main ()
> {
> bool b = false;
>
> Jakub
