On 20 September 2015 at 22:32, Christophe Lyon
<christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 25 May 2015 at 22:16, Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopeziba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 25 May 2015 at 21:56, Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Perhaps we should introduce GCC_BAD_LOC with a location_t argument and use
>>> it
>>> here.
>>
>> Why would we want to obfuscate code like that? I would propose to
>> actually remove GCC_BAD completely.
>>
> Hi
> It looks like this patch has finally been committed on 2015-09-18
> (r227923), right?
Yes, I had almost forgotten about it.
> I'm not sure why, since the 1st warning is xfail.
Strange that I missed this, but I can see it now. (Well, not so
strange, contrib/compare_tests sometimes produces nonsense)
Could you try with this patch? It seems to work for me. I'll commit it
as obvious if it works for you too.
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pragma-diag-5.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pragma-diag-5.c (revision 227932)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pragma-diag-5.c (working copy)
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
/* { dg-do compile } */
-#pragma GCC diagnostic /* { dg-warning "24:missing" "missing" { xfail
*-*-* } } */
+#pragma GCC diagnostic /* { dg-warning "missing" "missing" } */
+/* { dg-warning "24:missing" "missing" { xfail *-*-* } 2 } */
#pragma GCC diagnostic warn /* { dg-warning "24:expected" } */
#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wfoo" /* { dg-warning "32:unknown" } */
Cheers,
Manuel.
