Kai Tietz <ktiet...@googlemail.com> writes:
>>> Index: gcc.dg/vect/pr46126.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- gcc.dg/vect/pr46126.c (revision 184657)
>>> +++ gcc.dg/vect/pr46126.c (working copy)
>>> @@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
>>> /* { dg-do compile } */
>>>
>>> +__extension__ typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t;
>>
>> I think you should use __UINTPTR_TYPE__/uintptr_t instead.
>
> Ok, but in fact it makes for this testcase no difference.
Maybe, but it's the correct thing to do IMO.
>>> Index: gcc.dg/format/dfp-scanf-1.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- gcc.dg/format/dfp-scanf-1.c (revision 184657)
>>> +++ gcc.dg/format/dfp-scanf-1.c (working copy)
>>> @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
>>> /* { dg-do compile } */
>>> /* { dg-require-effective-target dfp } */
>>> /* { dg-options "-Wformat" } */
>>> -/* { dg-skip-if "No scanf/printf dfp support" { *-*-mingw* } } */
>>> +/* { dg-skip-if "No scanf/printf dfp support" { *-*-mingw* } { "*" }
>>> { "" } } */
>>
>>
>> What's the point of this change? Why are you explicitly adding the
>> defaults?
>
> I made bad expierence by omitting those defaults. Actual a different
> testcase, which also omitted those defaults, were still ran instead of
> being skipped.
Please don't make such a change willy-nilly (especially this late in the
4.7 release cycle) unless there's a concrete reason to do so, and
describe the problem/file a PR if you encounter it.
> In most places over testsuite the defaults are specified, too.
True for older testcases, before it was possible to omit the defaults.
No one went over the testsuite to clean things up so far ;-( That's
absolutely no reason to add this now, though.
Rainer
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University
