On Tue, 2017-05-02 at 12:56 -0400, Eric Gallager wrote: > On 3/24/17, Eric Gallager <eg...@gwmail.gwu.edu> wrote: > > On 3/24/17, David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, 2017-03-24 at 14:10 -0400, Eric Gallager wrote: > > > > The attached test case failed with gcc 4.9 and older, but > > > > started > > > > compiling successfully with only the 1 expected warning with > > > > gcc 5. > > > > Adding it to the test suite would ensure that this behavior > > > > doesn't > > > > regress. > > > > > > Thanks for posting this. > > > > > > What's the significance of the leading space in the: > > > #pragma GCC diagnostic pop > > > line? Is *that* the bug? (did we have a bug # for this, I > > > wonder?) > > > > > > > It prints a warning without it, which would be entirely correct of > > it to > > do: > > > > /Users/ericgallager/gcc-git/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pragma-diag > > -7.c:8:2: > > warning: suggest hiding #pragma from traditional C with an indented > > # > > [-Wtraditional] > > #pragma GCC diagnostic pop > > ^ > > > > I only wanted the test case to be testing for the warnings about > > suffixes; another warning about the pragma would just be noise, > > albeit > > correct noise. > > > > > > > > > Note that I have only tested it by compiling it manually, and > > > > not by actually running it as part of the entire test suite, so > > > > please > > > > let me know if I got any of the dejagnu directives wrong. > > > > > > When I started contributing to gcc, it took me a while to figure > > > out > > > how to run just one case in the testsuite, so in case it's > > > helpful I'll > > > post the recipe here: > > > > > > 1) Find the pertinent Tcl script that runs the test: a .exp > > > script in > > > the same directory, or one of the ancestors directories. For > > > this case > > > it's gcc.dg/dg.exp. The significant part is the filename: dg.exp > > > > > > 2) Figure out the appropriate "make" target, normally based on > > > the > > > source language for the test. For this case it's "check-gcc" > > > > > > 3) Run make in your BUILDDIR/gcc, passing in a suitable value for > > > RUNTESTFLAGS based on the filename found in step 1 above. > > > For this case, giving it a couple of "-v" flags for verbosity (so > > > that > > > we can see the command-line of the compiler invocation) it would > > > be: > > > > > > $ make -jN && make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="-v -v dg.exp=pragma > > > -diag > > > -7.c" > > > > > > (for some N; I like the "make && make check-FOO" construction to > > > ensure > > > that the compiler is rebuilt before running the tests). > > > > > > ...which leads to a summary of: > > > > > > # of expected passes 3 > > > > > > which looks good. > > > > Okay, I tried this, and I also got: > > > > # of expected passes 3 > > > > too, so that's good. > > > > > > > > You can also use wildcards e.g.: > > > > > > make -j64 && make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="-v -v dg.exp=pragma > > > -diag-*.c" > > > > > > (and can use -jN on the "make check-FOO" invocation if there are > > > a lot of > > > tests; I tend not to use it for a small number of tests, to avoid > > > interleaving of output in the logs). > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Eric Gallager > > > > > > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > > > > > > > 2017-03-24 Eric Gallager <eg...@gwmail.gwu.edu> > > > > > > > > * gcc.dg/pragma-diag-7.c: New test. > > > > > > I tested your new test case via the above approach and it looks > > > good to > > > me. > > > > > > Although we're meant to only be accepting regression fixes and > > > documentation fixes right now (stage 4 of gcc 7 development) I > > > feel > > > that extra test coverage like this also ought to be acceptable. > > > > It's okay to save it for next stage 1, I'm already submitting it > > later > > than I intended to, so extra waiting won't hurt. > > > > Okay, GCC 7 has been released and GCC 8 stage 1 is open now, so I'm > pinging this: > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-03/msg01319.html > > > > > > > I don't know if the test case is sufficiently small to be exempt > > > from > > > the FSF's paperwork requirements here: > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html > > > (do you have that paperwork in place?) > > > > > > Thanks > > > Dave > > > > Yes, I dropped off my copyright assignment at the FSF in December, > > but > > I don't have commit access yet though. > > Thanks, > > Eric > > > > David, can I list you as my sponsor when applying for > write-after-approval SVN access? Or would someone else be better?
Yes. I've gone ahead and committed this testcase to trunk as r248253.
