On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 06:08:44PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> On Apr 15, 2018, at 5:50 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 04:53:27PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> >> 2018-04-15 Bill Schmidt <wschm...@linux.ibm.com>
> >>
> >> PR testsuite/85326
> >> * g++.dg/undef-bool-1.C: New file.
> >
> > Tests really shouldn't be added to g++.dg/ directly, but to subdirectories
> > thereof.
> > In this case, I think g++.dg/ext/undef-bool-1.C is the right location.
> > And see below.
> >
> > Also, just a single space in between : and description in the ChangeLog
> > file. Otherwise LGTM, but please wait for PowerPC maintainer ack.
> >
> >> * gcc.target/powerpc/powerpc.exp: Remove .C support.
> >> * gcc.target/powerpc/undef-bool-1.C: Remove file.
> >>
> >>
> >> Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/undef-bool-1.C
> >> ===================================================================
> >> --- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/undef-bool-1.C (nonexistent)
> >> +++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/undef-bool-1.C (working copy)
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
> >> +/* { dg-do compile { target { powerpc*-*-* } } } */
> >> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -std=c++11 -DNO_WARN_X86_INTRINSICS" } */
> >
> > g++.dg/ tests are cycled through some or all -std= options, so
> > rather than -std=c++11 you should require effective target c++11,
> > or if you want to run it for -std=c++11 only and not others, c++11only.
> > Though in this testcase I don't see a reason why it wouldn't work even with
> > c++14, c++17 or c++2a.
>
> OK, agreed on all fronts. Segher, okay with these changes?
Sure! But does it even need c++11? Maybe something in the headers does?
(/me tries... Seems to work fine with -std=c++98, too?)
Thanks for the patch,
Segher
