Jozef Lawrynowicz <joze...@mittosystems.com> writes:
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp
> index 1df645e283c..1ce449cb935 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp
> @@ -417,6 +417,16 @@ proc gcc-dg-prune { system text } {
> return "::unsupported::large return values"
> }
>
> + # If exceptions are disabled, mark tests expecting exceptions to be
> enabled
> + # as unsupported.
> + if [regexp "(^|\n)\[^\n\]*: error: exception handling disabled" $text] {
> + return "::unsupported::exception handling disabled"
> + }
This is probably safe, but...
> +
> + if [regexp "(^|\n)\[^\n\]*: error: #error .__cpp_exceptions." $text] {
> + return "::unsupported::exception handling disabled"
> + }
...it looks like this would disable g++.dg/cpp1y/feat-neg.C for all
targets. I assume this was motivated by g++.dg/cpp2a/feat-cxx2a.C,
but the kind of effective-target tests you had in the original patch
are probably better there. It might then be more robust to test that
[check_effective_target_...] for the "exception handling disabled" case
above as well, so that other targets aren't affected accidentally.
It'd be good to test a target/multilib that has exceptions enabled by
default to make sure there's no change in the number of unsupported
tests (rather than just no new fails).
Thanks,
Richard
