Hi!
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 14:48:13 +0200, Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote:
> This is second patch that addresses test-suite fallout. All these tests fail
> because -Wreturn-type is
> now on by default.
>
> Patch can bootstrap on ppc64le-redhat-linux and survives regression tests.
... but alters some LTO test cases as follows:
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/20080907_0.C
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/20080907_0.C
> @@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
> // { dg-lto-do assemble }
> +// { dg-lto-options "-Wno-return-type" }
This means that instead of the default (without explicit
"dg-lto-options") "LTO options torture testing" testing, we're now *only*
testing one variant, with only the "-Wno-return-type" option specified.
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/20080915_0.C
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/20080915_0.C
> @@ -1,4 +1,6 @@
> // { dg-lto-do assemble }
> +// { dg-lto-options "-Wno-return-type" }
Same, but...
> @@ -16,7 +18,7 @@ int func(const Bar& b) {
> }
>
> struct Baz {
> - Bar& operator*() {}
> + Bar& operator*() { static Bar a; return a; }
> };
... given that you're addressing here the (only, as it seems)
"-Wreturn-type" issue, you don't need to specify "-Wno-return-type" at
all.
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/20091002-1_0.C
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/20091002-1_0.C
> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
> // { dg-lto-do link }
> // { dg-require-effective-target fpic }
> -// { dg-lto-options {{-fPIC -flto}} }
> +// { dg-lto-options {{-fPIC -flto -Wno-return-type}} }
> // { dg-extra-ld-options "-fPIC -r -nostdlib" }
ACK. This only tested one variant: "-fPIC -flto", now testing "-fPIC
-flto -Wno-return-type". (Similarly for several more.)
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/20101010-1_0.C
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/20101010-1_0.C
> @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
> // { dg-lto-do link }
> +// { dg-lto-options "-Wno-return-type" }
NACK, see above.
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/20101010-2_0.C
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/20101010-2_0.C
> @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
> // { dg-lto-do link }
> +// { dg-lto-options "-Wno-return-type" }
NACK, see above.
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr65475c_0.C
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr65475c_0.C
> @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
> /* { dg-lto-do link } */
> -/* { dg-lto-options "-O2 -w" } */
> /* { dg-extra-ld-options { -O2 -Wno-odr -r -nostdlib } } */
> +/* { dg-lto-options { "-O2 -w -Wno-return-type" } } */
I don't know about that one. This previously tested two variants
separately: "-O2" and "-w", and you've now changed it to test one
combined variant: "-O2 -w -Wno-return-type". Your change is correct if
this previously meant to test the combined variant "-O2 -w" instead of
each of them separately -- which I don't know/have not verified.
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr69589_0.C
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr69589_0.C
> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
> // { dg-lto-do link }
> -// { dg-lto-options "-O2 -rdynamic" }
> +// { dg-lto-options { "-O2 -rdynamic -Wno-return-type" } }
> // { dg-extra-ld-options "-r -nostdlib" }
Same: "-O2" and "-rdynamic" separately vs. now "-O2 -rdynamic
-Wno-return-type" combined.
Unfortunately, we can't use "dg-options" or "dg-additional-options" here:
WARNING: lto.exp does not support dg-additional-options
WARNING: lto.exp does not support dg-options in primary source file
OK to fix the first four issues as follows? If approving this, please
respond with "Reviewed-by: NAME <EMAIL>" so that your effort will be
recorded. See <https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Reviewed-by>.
diff --git gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/20080907_0.C
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/20080907_0.C
index a423196..153d0ab 100644
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/20080907_0.C
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/20080907_0.C
@@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
// { dg-lto-do assemble }
-// { dg-lto-options "-Wno-return-type" }
+
+/* "WARNING: lto.exp does not support dg-additional-options" */
+#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wreturn-type"
struct Foo { void func (); }; Foo & bar () { } struct Baz { Baz (Baz &); };
Baz dummy() { bar().func(); }
diff --git gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/20080915_0.C
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/20080915_0.C
index 40c5042..c91e756 100644
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/20080915_0.C
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/20080915_0.C
@@ -1,5 +1,4 @@
// { dg-lto-do assemble }
-// { dg-lto-options "-Wno-return-type" }
struct Foo {
static const int dummy;
diff --git gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/20101010-1_0.C
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/20101010-1_0.C
index 8f694c7..bb3e6d4 100644
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/20101010-1_0.C
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/20101010-1_0.C
@@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
// { dg-lto-do link }
-// { dg-lto-options "-Wno-return-type" }
+
+/* "WARNING: lto.exp does not support dg-additional-options" */
+#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wreturn-type"
typedef long size_t;
template < class, class > struct pair
diff --git gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/20101010-2_0.C
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/20101010-2_0.C
index a26956f..721ac01 100644
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/20101010-2_0.C
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/20101010-2_0.C
@@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
// { dg-lto-do link }
-// { dg-lto-options "-Wno-return-type" }
+
+/* "WARNING: lto.exp does not support dg-additional-options" */
+#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wreturn-type"
typedef int size_t;
template < size_t _Nw > struct _Base_bitset
Grüße
Thomas
