On 12/3/23 05:23, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi!
On 2023-12-03T08:41:59+0100, Florian Weimer <f...@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
* Jeff Law:
Anyway, this test was the one I was most concerned about. Basically
we're testing that on a !dfp target that the builtins are not available.
It expects a warning, but gets an error by default now. I just
changed the test to use -fpermissive, so that the test behaves as it did
previously.
In these ambiguous cases, I cloned tests into -fpermissive and error
variants. This might be appropriate here as well (or I should remove
the clones again if those are the wrong thing to do).
For that test case, it did seem appropriate to me to simply
's%dg-warning%dg-error', which I already had posted in
<https://inbox.sourceware.org/87fs0luded....@euler.schwinge.homeip.net>
"c: Turn -Wimplicit-function-declaration into a permerror: Fix
'gcc.dg/gnu23-builtins-no-dfp-1.c'",
awaiting review. Rationale: For this test case it's secondary *how*
"implicit declaration of function" is diagnosed, so I'd test the standard
way, which instead of "warning" now is "error". (But no strong feelings
either way.) ;-)
Sorry, I missed your fix. I like it better then mine. Approved, along
with reverting my bits.
jeff
