On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 07:40:24PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 12:32:03PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > > --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-53094-3.C
> > > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-53094-3.C
> > > > @@ -1,7 +1,6 @@
> > > > // { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
> > > > // { dg-options "" }
> > > > -// Ignore warning on some powerpc-ibm-aix configurations.
> > > > -// { dg-prune-output "non-standard ABI extension" }
> > > > +// { dg-additional-options "-Wno-psabi" }
> > >
> > > Here I'd just use
> > > // { dg-options "-Wno-psabi" }
> > > and not add dg-additional-options.
> >
> > I would get rid of dg-options completely, it's an abomination, but that
> > unfortunately changes behaviour. dg-additional-options always does what
> > you think, but dg-options does not.
>
> There are important differences between dg-options and
> dg-additional-options, e.g. for g++.dg/ testsuite presence of dg-options
> results in the -std=gnu++* modes being cycled (unless -std= appears in
> those), while without dg-options it cycles through -std=c++* modes.
> But, if there already is unconditional dg-options, adding
> dg-additional-options instead of just adding that option to dg-options
> doesn't make much sense.
Hrm, I thought dg-options overrides even RUNTESTFLAGS, but it doesn't,
not in my single trivial test anyway.
Segher
