Hi Nathaniel,
>> > There are a couple of other tests that appear to potentially have a
>> > similar issue:
>> >
>> > global-2_a.C
>> > 21:// { dg-final { scan-lang-dump-not {Reachable GMF '::printf[^\n']*'
>> > added} module } }
>> >
>> > global-3_a.C
>> > 15:// { dg-final { scan-lang-dump-not {Reachable GMF '::printf[^'\n]*'
>> > added} module } }
>>
>> neither module file contains "Reachable GMF" at all, with ::printf or
>> otherwise.
>>
>
> Yes, I think the test is aiming to check that such a declaration is not
> added at all, and so that's correct. But if for some reason on some
> system it did add "::std::printf" that would be a bug that would not be
> caught by this test.
understood. However, the question about global-3_a.C remains which
contains no printf at all.
>> > Which I suppose maybe also should be updated in the same way; I guess
>> > they don't fail on Solaris because they aren't actually correctly
>> > testing what they think they are.
>>
>> Perhaps, but it would be useful to first understand what those tests are
>> supposed to look like. WRT global-3_a.C, printf doesn't occur at all,
>> so this may just be a case of copy-and-paste.
>>
>> Maybe Nathan, who authored the tests, can shed some light.
>>
>> > Otherwise LGTM.
>>
>> Thanks. I'll go ahead and commit the patch as is, asjusting the other
>> two once it's become clear what they should look like.
>>
>
> Ah, I should have been clearer: I'm not sure I can approve, but I've
> CC'd Jason in.
Sorry, I already committed the patch. I can revert, of course, if
that's inappropriate. OTOH, it could be considered obvious ;-)
Rainer
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University
