On Fri, 2024-09-27 at 09:54 -0400, Lewis Hyatt wrote: > On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 9:41 AM David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2024-09-26 at 23:28 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > The following patch on top of the just posted cleanup patch > > > saves/restores the m_classification_history and m_push_list > > > vectors for PCH. Without that as the testcase shows during > > > parsing > > > of the templates we don't report ignored diagnostics, but after > > > loading > > > PCH header when instantiating those templates those warnings can > > > be > > > emitted. This doesn't show up on x86_64-linux build because > > > configure > > > injects there -fcf-protection -mshstk flags during library build > > > (and > > > so > > > also during PCH header creation), but make check doesn't use > > > those > > > flags > > > and so the PCH header is ignored. > > > > > > Bootstrapped on i686-linux so far, bootstrap/regtest on x86_64- > > > linux > > > and > > > i686-linux still pending, ok for trunk if it passes it? > > > > Thanks, yes please > > > > Dave > > > > A couple comments that may be helpful... > > -This is also PR 64117 > (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64117) > > -I submitted a patch last year for that but did not get any response > ( > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-November/635648.html). > I guess I never pinged it because I am still trying to ping two other > ones :).
Gahhh, I'm sorry about this. What are the other two patches? > My patch did not switch to vec so it was not as nice as this > one. I wonder though, if some of the testcases I added could be > incorporated? In particular the testcase from my patch > pragma-diagnostic-3.C I believe will still be failing after this one. > There is an issue with C++ because it processes the pragmas twice, > once in early mode and once in normal mode, that makes it do the > wrong > thing for this case: > > t.h: > ---- > #pragma GCC diagnostic push > #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored... > //no pop at end of the file > > t.c > ---- > #include "t.h" > #pragma GCC diagnostic pop > //expect to be at the initial state here, but won't be if t.h is a > PCH > > In my patch I had separated the PCH restore from a more general > "state > restore" logic so that the C++ frontend can restore the state after > the first pass through the data. It sounds like the ideal here would be to incorporate the test cases from Lewis's patch into Jakub's, if the latter can be tweaked to fix pragma-diagnostic-3.C Dave
