* Jeff Law: > On 11/14/24 11:42 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: >> The section name might the user a hint of what is going on. >> I tried to include the flags as well, but there didn't seem to be >> consensus about including the internal section flags in the diagnostics: >> [RFC PATCH] More detailed diagnostics for section type conflicts >> >> <https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/87y13awl2k....@oldenburg.str.redhat.com/> >> gcc/ >> * varasm.cc (get_section): Include name of section in >> diagnostic messages.
> OK. Going to assume you've done or will do the usual bootstrap and > regression check. While I don't expect problems, I wouldn't be > terribly surprised to find some diagnostic test to be overly sensitive > to the exact diagnostic message. I diffed the output of contrib/test_summary and saw no relevant changes. I expect the existing dg-* patterns work unchanged because I only appended to the diagnostic messages. In general, the vast majority of these patterns use substring searches and do not anchor the pattern at the start or end. Thanks, Florian
