On 10/26/2017 10:34 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
[CCing Rainer and Mike for the gcc-dg.exp part]
Alternate idea: could show_column become a tri-state:
* default: show non-zero columns
* never: never show columns
* always: always show a column, printing 0 for the no-column case
and then use "always" in our testsuite
One of the things this patch shows up is the number of places where
we're default accepting a zero column. IMHO it is best to explicitly
mark such tests.
+ size_t l = sprintf (result, col ? ":%d:%d" : ":%d", line, col);
Possibly a silly question, but is it OK to have a formatted string
call in which some of the arguments aren't consumed? (here "col" is only
consumed for the true case, which consumes 2 arguments; it's not consumed
for the false case).
Yes.
+ gcc_checking_assert (l + 1 < sizeof (result));
Would snprintf be safer?
I guess. but the assert's still needed.
Please create a selftest for the function, covering these cases:
* line == 0
* line > 0 and col == 0
* line > 0 and col > 0 (checking output for these cases)
* line == INT_MAX and col == INT_MAX (without checking output, just to tickle
the assert)
* line == INT_MIN and col == INT_MIN (likewise)
Ok, I'll investigate this new fangled self-testing framework :)
There are some testcases where we deliberately don't have a *line*
number; what happens to these?
Those don't change. the dg-harness already does NOT expect a column
when lineno=0.
My Tcl skills aren't great, so hopefully someone else can review this;
CCing Rainer and Mike.
Also, is the proposed syntax for "no columns" OK? (note the tristate
idea above)
I'm not wedded to '-:', but as mentioned above, I think the tests should
be explicit about whether a column is expected or not (and the default
needs to be 'expect column', because of history)
thanks for your comments.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
