On 3/26/25 6:14 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
My r15-8904-ge200f53a555651 changed the std::vector initializer-list constructor so that it calls a new _M_range_initialize_n function instead of _M_range_initialize. Change the scan-tree-dump pattern in this g++.dg test to match the new gimple output.gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: * g++.dg/tree-ssa/initlist-opt1.C: Match _M_range_initialize_n instead of _M_range_initialize. --- Would anybody prefer a different pattern? e.g. just {_M_range_initialize_n<const char\* const\*} without the second template argument and '>' would work, and would be correct for the gcc-14 backport where the new function only has one template parameter.
That sounds most convenient to me. I don't think the specific signature is important, as long as it checks that we use range-initialization from const char *.
Or is it better to be more explicit about the full signature here, and then use {_M_range_initialize_n<const char\* const\*>} for gcc-14?gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/initlist-opt1.C | 2 +-1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/initlist-opt1.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/initlist-opt1.C index 89abdd90a82..2b9089acd82 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/initlist-opt1.C +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/initlist-opt1.C @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ // { dg-skip-if "requires hosted libstdc++ for string" { ! hostedlib } }// Test that we do range-initialization from const char *.-// { dg-final { scan-tree-dump {_M_range_initialize<const char\* const\*>} "gimple" } } +// { dg-final { scan-tree-dump {_M_range_initialize_n<const char\* const\*, const char\* const\*>} "gimple" } } // { dg-final { scan-tree-dump {static const char.*72} "gimple" } }#include <string>
