Resending since it bounced as my mailer wasn't set to plain text. Teresa On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohn...@google.com> wrote: > Yes it will ICE on failure. What is the guideline on c.torture vs gcc.dg? > Thanks, > Teresa > > On May 3, 2013 11:47 AM, "Jeff Law" <l...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> On 05/03/2013 12:35 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote: >>> >>> Here is the patch with the new test case. Tested using dejagnu with >>> and without my fix for PR57154 to confirm that it exposes the failure >>> and works with the patch. >>> >>> Ok for trunk? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Teresa >>> >>> 2013-05-03 Teresa Johnson <tejohn...@google.com> >>> >>> PR bootstrap/57154 >>> * gcc.dg/pr57154.c: New test. >> >> Is the test just supposed to ICE or something similar when it fails? Any >> reason not to put it into c-torture so that it gets run with multiple option >> sets? You can use the same dg-options line to force on the scheduler. >> >> No objection to it being in gcc.dg though. >> >> jeff >>
-- Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohn...@google.com | 408-460-2413
