On 04/27/2017 04:04 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 04/26/2017 01:57 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
I guess those should be decided case by case
whether we want relative, absolute or saved line numbers. If the
diagnostic is within the same function or code block as the stuff it is
relative to, relative is
On 04/27/2017 10:43 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 04/26/2017 01:57 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 01:48:03PM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
[ reposting with patch removed, was too big for gcc-patches@ ]
I see in various tests you've ended up with ... { target ... } . }
I think it w
On 04/26/2017 01:57 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
I guess those should be decided case by case
whether we want relative, absolute or saved line numbers. If the
diagnostic is within the same function or code block as the stuff it is
relative to, relative is fine, but if e.g. the messages are just at t
On 04/26/2017 01:57 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 01:48:03PM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
[ reposting with patch removed, was too big for gcc-patches@ ]
I see in various tests you've ended up with ... { target ... } . }
I think it would be better to just use ... { target ... }
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 01:48:03PM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
> [ reposting with patch removed, was too big for gcc-patches@ ]
I see in various tests you've ended up with ... { target ... } . }
I think it would be better to just use ... { target ... } }
in that case, . is the default, and if targe
[ reposting with patch removed, was too big for gcc-patches@ ]
On 04/26/2017 01:33 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 03/27/2017 03:11 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 24/03/17 18:13, Mike Stump wrote:
On Mar 24, 2017, at 5:58 AM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
- { /* { dg-warning "statement may fall through" ""
On 28/03/17 10:23, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi!
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 16:46:19 +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
I've run the gcc testsuite for target nvptx-none and ran into "test for
excess errors" FAILs due to:
...
sorry, unimplemented: target cannot support alloca.
...
This patch marks those testcas
Hi!
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 16:46:19 +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
> I've run the gcc testsuite for target nvptx-none and ran into "test for
> excess errors" FAILs due to:
> ...
> sorry, unimplemented: target cannot support alloca.
> ...
>
> This patch marks those testcases as requiring alloca.
I obs
On 24/03/17 18:13, Mike Stump wrote:
On Mar 24, 2017, at 5:58 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
- { /* { dg-warning "statement may fall through" "" { target c } 23 } */
- int a[i]; /* { dg-warning "statement may fall through" "" { target c++
} 24 } */
+ { /* { dg-warning "statement may fa
On 24/03/17 13:38, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Tom,
On 23/03/17 18:25, Mike Stump wrote:
On Mar 23, 2017, at 8:46 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
I've run the gcc testsuite for target nvptx-none and ran into "test for
excess errors" FAILs due to:
...
sorry, unimplemented: target cannot support alloca.
We
On Mar 24, 2017, at 5:58 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
> - { /* { dg-warning "statement may fall through" "" { target c } 23 } */
> - int a[i]; /* { dg-warning "statement may fall through" "" { target c++
> } 24 } */
> + { /* { dg-warning "statement may fall through" "" { target c } 24 } *
Hi Richard,
>> Similar
>>
>> -m64
>> FAIL: gcc.dg/Walloca-2.c note (test for warnings, line 38)
>> FAIL: gcc.dg/Wvla-larger-than-2.c note (test for warnings, line 25)
>>
>> -m32
>> FAIL: gcc.dg/Walloca-1.c (test for warnings, line 26)
>> FAIL: gcc.dg/Walloca-1.c (test for excess errors)
>> FAIL:
Hi Richard,
> Similar
>
> -m64
> FAIL: gcc.dg/Walloca-2.c note (test for warnings, line 38)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/Wvla-larger-than-2.c note (test for warnings, line 25)
>
> -m32
> FAIL: gcc.dg/Walloca-1.c (test for warnings, line 26)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/Walloca-1.c (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/Wal
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
>> On 23/03/17 18:25, Mike Stump wrote:
>>> On Mar 23, 2017, at 8:46 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
I've run the gcc testsuite for target nvptx-none and ran into "test for
excess errors" FAILs due to:
...
sorry, uni
Hi Tom,
> On 23/03/17 18:25, Mike Stump wrote:
>> On Mar 23, 2017, at 8:46 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>>
>>> I've run the gcc testsuite for target nvptx-none and ran into "test for
>>> excess errors" FAILs due to:
>>> ...
>>> sorry, unimplemented: target cannot support alloca.
>>
>> We'd encourage
On 23/03/17 18:25, Mike Stump wrote:
On Mar 23, 2017, at 8:46 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
I've run the gcc testsuite for target nvptx-none and ran into "test for excess
errors" FAILs due to:
...
sorry, unimplemented: target cannot support alloca.
We'd encourage ports to support alloca. :-)
O
On Mar 23, 2017, at 8:46 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>
> I've run the gcc testsuite for target nvptx-none and ran into "test for
> excess errors" FAILs due to:
> ...
> sorry, unimplemented: target cannot support alloca.
We'd encourage ports to support alloca. :-)
> OK for trunk for stage1?
Ok.
On 23/03/17 17:24, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi Tom!
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 16:46:19 +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
I've run the gcc testsuite for target nvptx-none and ran into "test for
excess errors" FAILs due to:
...
sorry, unimplemented: target cannot support alloca.
...
This patch marks those tes
Hi Tom!
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 16:46:19 +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
> I've run the gcc testsuite for target nvptx-none and ran into "test for
> excess errors" FAILs due to:
> ...
> sorry, unimplemented: target cannot support alloca.
> ...
>
> This patch marks those testcases as requiring alloca.
T
19 matches
Mail list logo
