On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 09:25:03AM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-11-22 at 14:37 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 02:32:39PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > > On 11/22/2016 02:18 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > >
> > > > > @@ -284,7 +292,7 @@ print_rtx_operand_code_i (const_rtx in_rtx,
> > > > > int idx)
> > > > > if (INSN_HAS_LOCATION (in_insn))
> > > > > {
> > > > > expanded_location xloc = insn_location (in_insn);
> > > > > - fprintf (outfile, " %s:%i", xloc.file, xloc.line);
> > > > > + fprintf (outfile, " \"%s\":%i", xloc.file,
> > > > > xloc.line);
> > > >
> > > > Was this change intentional? We've got to update a scan
> > > > -assembler
> > > > statement in an s390 test to reflect the additional double quotes
> > > > in the output string. Not a big deal, just wanted to make sure
> > > > this is not an accident.
>
> Sorry about the breakage.
>
> How widespread is the problem?
In the s390 tests, it is only a single scan-assembler. Not sure
whether these are affected or not:
gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/pr29609-1.c:/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "pr29609-1.c:18"
} } */
gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/pr29609-2.c:/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "pr29609-2.c:27"
} } */
...
gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/pr36690-1.c:/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "pr36690-1.c:11"
} } */
gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/pr36690-2.c:/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "pr36690-2.c:24"
} } */
gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/pr36690-3.c:/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "pr36690-3.c:19"
} } */
...
gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/pr37616.c:/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "pr37616.c:17" } }
*/
...
gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/short-circuit.c:/* { dg-final { scan-assembler
"short-circuit.c:11" } } */
...
(List generated with
$ cd testsuite
$ grep -r "scan-assembler.*[.]c.\?.\?.\?:" .
)
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
