--- Comment #59 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-12 23:05 ---
This is fixed for the C front-end.
The C++ front-end just needs to define the prefixes and fix all failures in the
same way that has been done for the C front-end.
The Fortran front-end would require more changes,
--- Comment #58 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-12 22:57 ---
Subject: Bug 25241
Author: manu
Date: Thu Jul 12 22:57:32 2007
New Revision: 126606
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=126606
Log:
2007-07-12 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
J
--- Comment #57 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-10 09:17 ---
Subject: Bug 25241
Author: manu
Date: Tue Jul 10 09:17:01 2007
New Revision: 126511
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=126511
Log:
2007-07-10 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR te
--- Comment #56 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-08 14:50 ---
Subject: Bug 25241
Author: manu
Date: Sun Jul 8 14:50:37 2007
New Revision: 126461
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=126461
Log:
2007-07-08 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR t
--- Comment #55 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-30 13:06 ---
Subject: Bug 25241
Author: manu
Date: Sat Jun 30 13:06:45 2007
New Revision: 126146
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=126146
Log:
2007-06-30 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR t
--- Comment #54 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-30 13:03 ---
Subject: Bug 25241
Author: manu
Date: Sat Jun 30 13:02:48 2007
New Revision: 126145
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=126145
Log:
2007-06-30 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR t
--- Comment #53 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-07 21:01 ---
Subject: Bug 25241
Author: manu
Date: Thu Jun 7 21:01:41 2007
New Revision: 125543
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=125543
Log:
2007-06-07 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR t
--- Comment #52 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-06 20:49 ---
Subject: Bug 25241
Author: manu
Date: Wed Jun 6 20:49:09 2007
New Revision: 125505
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=125505
Log:
2007-06-06 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR t
--- Comment #51 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-05 22:30 ---
Subject: Bug 25241
Author: manu
Date: Tue Jun 5 22:30:24 2007
New Revision: 125347
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=125347
Log:
2007-06-05 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR t
--- Comment #50 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-04 21:12 ---
Subject: Bug 25241
Author: manu
Date: Mon Jun 4 21:11:51 2007
New Revision: 125317
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=125317
Log:
2007-06-04 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR t
--- Comment #49 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-17 02:52 ---
(In reply to comment #48)
> Created an attachment (id=13561)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13561&action=view) [edit]
> patch for testsuite infrastructure
>
> This patch overrides dg-error and dg-
--- Comment #48 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-15 19:29 ---
Created an attachment (id=13561)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13561&action=view)
patch for testsuite infrastructure
This patch overrides dg-error and dg-warning if gcc_error_prefix and
gcc_warn
--- Comment #47 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-15 16:15 ---
(In reply to comment #46)
> I've been looking at this again recently. I have a patch that changes
> dg-error
> and dg-warning only for languages that define gcc_error_prefix and
> gcc_warning_prefix. I have tested i
--- Comment #46 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-15 01:35 ---
I've been looking at this again recently. I have a patch that changes dg-error
and dg-warning only for languages that define gcc_error_prefix and
gcc_warning_prefix. I have tested it with C and ensured that tests fo
--- Comment #45 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-30 21:13 ---
I have fixed all failing testcases in the C front-end. I am going to send the
fixes to janis, if someone else is interested, let me know it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25241
--- Comment #44 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-30 12:25 ---
(In reply to comment #43)
> A couple of days ago in irc I agreed to come up with a version of the patch
> that just handles the C tests. So far it works fine with C but breaks
> everything else, but I haven't forgotte
--- Comment #43 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-29 01:12 ---
A couple of days ago in irc I agreed to come up with a version of the patch
that just handles the C tests. So far it works fine with C but breaks
everything else, but I haven't forgotten about it.
--
http://gcc.
--- Comment #42 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-26 20:48 ---
Created an attachment (id=13291)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13291&action=view)
version 2 of fixtestsuite script
This new version of the script makes more automatic fixes.
--
manu at gcc do
--- Comment #41 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-24 17:55 ---
(In reply to comment #38)
> For comment #32 I get the failure but don't understand the problem; the regexp
> matches the message, doesn't it? This doesn't seem any different from other
> Fortran tests but it's the onl
--- Comment #40 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-24 11:10 ---
In the current version of the patch janis-try2, this is more correct
-set expmsg "$msgprefix\[^\n]*$expmsg"
+set expmsg "$msgprefix\[^\n\]*$expmsg"
But it doesn't make any real difference (or so it seems).
--- Comment #39 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-24 00:28 ---
(In reply to comment #37)
> The tests in gcc.dg/dfp are only run for a compiler configured with
> --enable-decimal-float; the diagnostics tests there often just have "error" or
> "warning" as the expression to match.
--- Comment #38 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-23 23:52 ---
For comment #32 I get the failure but don't understand the problem; the regexp
matches the message, doesn't it? This doesn't seem any different from other
Fortran tests but it's the only one that fails; perhaps there
--- Comment #37 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-23 22:48 ---
The tests in gcc.dg/dfp are only run for a compiler configured with
--enable-decimal-float; the diagnostics tests there often just have "error" or
"warning" as the expression to match. I have patches for those and fo
--- Comment #36 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-23 22:13 ---
Created an attachment (id=13272)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13272&action=view)
List of broken testcases at revision 123028
Janis, this is the list of testcases broken by the last version of th
--- Comment #35 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-23 22:06 ---
(In reply to comment #32)
> Manuel, I'm starting to clean up tests so they can be used with or without the
> patch, like the fixes you've been posting. First I'm doing tests in
> gcc.dg/dfp.
I don't see any failure
--- Comment #34 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-23 21:59 ---
Created an attachment (id=13271)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13271&action=view)
Script to make automatic fixes to the testsuite
This script fixes the work-arounds used in the testsuite with som
--- Comment #33 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-23 21:52 ---
(In reply to comment #32)
> Manuel, I'm starting to clean up tests so they can be used with or without the
> patch, like the fixes you've been posting. First I'm doing tests in
> gcc.dg/dfp. Let me know if there's an
--- Comment #32 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-23 21:15 ---
Manuel, I'm starting to clean up tests so they can be used with or without the
patch, like the fixes you've been posting. First I'm doing tests in
gcc.dg/dfp. Let me know if there's an area you're not already lookin
--- Comment #31 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-23 20:51 ---
As for the puzzle in comment #30, I don't understand it either, but didn't try
very hard. This works for the current testsuite and the patch:
struct g g2 = { { 0, { 1 } } }; /* { dg-error "nested context.*g2.f.x" "n
--- Comment #30 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-22 22:36 ---
There is yet another strange behaviour of the current patch. For the testcase
in gcc.dg/array-2.c:
struct g g1 = { { 0, { } } };
struct g g2 = { { 0, { 1 } } }; /* { dg-error "(nested context)|(near
initialization)" "
--- Comment #29 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-13 00:49 ---
Created an attachment (id=13198)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13198&action=view)
janis patch (try 2)
This is an updated version of Janis patch that fixes the issues described in
comment #21.
-
--- Comment #28 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-13 00:44 ---
(In reply to comment #27)
> I still plan to find some time to dive into this issue, sorry it's taken so
> long.
>
My current show-stopper is the one described in comment #23. I think we should
be able to match that o
--- Comment #27 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-13 00:34 ---
Manuel, please submit a patch to fix those tests. If they are using the
correct directives then perhaps someone will notice.
I still plan to find some time to dive into this issue, sorry it's taken so
long.
--
--- Comment #26 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-13 00:29 ---
There are some tests that are using the wrong directive (or the test is
silently failing). Should I submit these as patches to gcc-patches?
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/20050121-1.c
--- Comment #25 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-01 23:24 ---
(In reply to comment #24)
> Manuel, I'm at a conference and then travelling without regular access to test
> machines, but I hope to get to this early next week.
>
Thanks. No hurry, just to let you know. I will keep
--- Comment #24 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-01 22:53 ---
Manuel, I'm at a conference and then travelling without regular access to test
machines, but I hope to get to this early next week.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25241
--- Comment #23 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-01 21:36 ---
Another issue that I am not sure how to fix.
Janis, could you take a look at this?
Testcase gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/20041213-1.c is like:
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* test redeclarations with void and implicit int */
ext
--- Comment #22 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-28 09:56 ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> Created an attachment (id=13003)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13003&action=view) [edit]
> preliminary patch
>
For fortran, the resulting regexp is like:
{:2: WARNIN
--- Comment #21 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-28 00:31 ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> Created an attachment (id=13003)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13003&action=view) [edit]
> preliminary patch
>
This patch only works for fortran and C front-ends. Obj
--- Comment #20 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 22:58 ---
Created an attachment (id=13003)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13003&action=view)
preliminary patch
Manuel, I like your idea of letting the DejaGnu procs do most of the work and
then modifying t
--- Comment #19 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 01:28 ---
Manuel, I'm very intestested in investigating your changes but have not yet had
a block of time in which to do that. I'll try to review them in the next
couple of days.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cg
--- Comment #18 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-02 13:14 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Manuel, I think your patch is a good idea but I'd rather have it add new
> directives with different names so that developers won't be confused by having
> different behavior, especially if
--- Comment #17 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-02 12:17 ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> Around 539 files show failing testcases because of this patch. I can provide
> the full list if some is interested.
Of those 539, around 229 files are affected by the use of workarounds
(dg
--- Comment #16 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-31 22:23 ---
Created an attachment (id=12991)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12991&action=view)
version 2
This is a new version of the patch. It fixes some issues with the previous one
that made correct testca
--- Comment #15 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2007-01-31 21:15 ---
Subject: Re: DejaGNU does not distinguish between errors and warnings
"manu at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| (In reply to comment #11)
| > The other DejaGnu procs that are wrapped in the GCC test
--- Comment #14 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-01-31 19:11
---
Subject: Re: DejaGNU does not distinguish between errors
and warnings
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> However, I don't see how we can avoid to have our own directives (either
> wrapped
--- Comment #13 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-31 18:34 ---
Manuel, I think your patch is a good idea but I'd rather have it add new
directives with different names so that developers won't be confused by having
different behavior, especially if Fortran tests need something di
--- Comment #12 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-31 18:10 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> The other DejaGnu procs that are wrapped in the GCC testsuite, like dg-test,
> are used within the .exp files, not within tests; that's why dg-error and
> dg-warning are different. Develope
--- Comment #11 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-31 17:34 ---
The other DejaGnu procs that are wrapped in the GCC testsuite, like dg-test,
are used within the .exp files, not within tests; that's why dg-error and
dg-warning are different. Developers are familiar with test direc
--- Comment #10 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2007-01-31 06:43 ---
Subject: Re: DejaGNU does not distinguish between errors and warnings
"manu at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| (In reply to comment #8)
| > This is nice, Manuel, I hadn't considered changing the ex
--- Comment #9 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-31 02:28 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> This is nice, Manuel, I hadn't considered changing the expressions as they are
> added to the messages list.
We already wrap dg-test (see the end of lib/gcc-dg.exp). So why not wrapping
dg-wa
--- Comment #8 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-31 02:03 ---
This is nice, Manuel, I hadn't considered changing the expressions as they are
added to the messages list.
Another possibility is to add two new test directives, for example
dg-gcc-warning and dg-gcc-error, and leave
--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-01-30 22:13 ---
Subject: Re: DejaGNU does not distinguish between errors
and warnings
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> There are around 6914 tests failing. And I am not even sure if the above patch
> is
--- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-30 21:10 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Subject: Re: DejaGNU does not distinguish between errors
> and warnings
>
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> > I have the following patch. Framework tests work.
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-01-30 21:01 ---
Subject: Re: DejaGNU does not distinguish between errors
and warnings
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> I have the following patch. Framework tests work. However, this patch will
> make
>
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-30 20:35 ---
I have the following patch. Framework tests work. However, this patch will make
a lot of tests to fail because:
* Many tests are using the wrong dg-warning or dg-error directive.
* Many tests add an explicit "warning:"
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-27 16:49 ---
How would you test whether this is fixed?
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-27 22:12 ---
The functionality to support dg-error and dg-warning is in proc dg-test in file
dg.exp from the DejaGnu project. It treats these two directives the same
except for the failure message. The GCC testsuite infrastructur
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-03 16:39 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
59 matches
Mail list logo
