On 04/28/2016 08:03 AM, Patrick Palka wrote:
The rest seem OK to me. Note that I'm not convinced all these tests were
designed to be execution tests, even though they use __builtin_abort and
friends. Though it's a good marker of something that can/should be looked
at.
True.. What made me look into this in the first place is that I
caught myself making a similar mistake, i.e. marking an execution test
case as dg-do compile instead of dg-do run out of habit.
It's an easy mistake to make and, it's pretty low in terms of real world
impact :-)
But I
suppose it's worth looking at the context of each of these tests to
see if they were not actually intended to be execution tests. I'll
double check this and report back; in the meantime I also found some
more tests that ought to be looked at.
I think for the set you already identified go ahead and make the
approved changes. We don't really lose anything by doing so. Going
forward we just have to continue to watch for this kind of thing
slipping through the cracks and updating tests as mistakes are identified.
jeff
