On 5/13/19 9:08 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 13/05/19 08:56 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> Tester started failing Wattributes1.C on various targets after this
>> change:
>>
>>
>>> commit de3f1d9aabb765f78d127696ff9dd0a83b268aa2 (HEAD, refs/bisect/bad)
>>> Author: redi <redi@138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4>
>>> Date: Fri May 10 21:41:11 2019 +0000
>>>
>>> Improve API docs for <memory> and <new>
>>>
>>> * include/bits/shared_ptr.h: Improve docs.
>>> * include/bits/shared_ptr_base.h: Likewise.
>>> * include/bits/stl_uninitialized.h: Likewise.
>>> * include/bits/unique_ptr.h: Likewise.
>>> * libsupc++/new: Likewise.
>>>
>>> git-svn-id: svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk@271077
>>> 138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4
>>
>> x86_64 native:
>>
>>> Running target unix
>>> FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/Wattributes1.C -std=c++14 (test for warnings,
>>> line 125)
>>> FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/Wattributes1.C -std=c++17 (test for warnings,
>>> line 125)
>>> FAIL: g++.dg/guality/pr55665.C -O2 line 23 p == 40
>>
>>
>> Grubbing through the logs shows:
>>
>>
>>> In file included from
>>> /home/law/gcc-testing/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/Wattributes1.C:5:^M
>>> /home/law/gcc-testing/gcc/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/new:126:26: note:
>>> previous declaration of 'void* operator new(std::size_t)'^M
>>
>> Looking at the test:
>>
>>> // PR c++/60373
>>> // { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
>>> // { dg-require-visibility "" }
>>>
>>> #include <new>
>>> __attribute__((visibility("hidden")))void*operator new(std::size_t);
>>> // { dg-warning "visibility attribute ignored" }
>>>
>>> // { dg-message "previous declaration" "" { target *-*-* } 125 }
>>> ~
>>
>>
>> It looks like we are expecting an error on line 125 that's now occuring
>> on 126. Or am I totally off-base here? I'll avoid ranting on whether
>> or not it is wise to test for a line # in a header file outside the
>> test :-)
>
> Yeah I have a patch coming. We discussed it on IRC earlier.
Sounds good (clearly I'm going through regressions in the tester this
morning :-)
jeff
