On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 21:08:48 +0000
Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@arm.com> wrote:
> Jozef Lawrynowicz <joze...@mittosystems.com> writes:
> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp
> > index 1df645e283c..1ce449cb935 100644
> > --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp
> > @@ -417,6 +417,16 @@ proc gcc-dg-prune { system text } {
> > return "::unsupported::large return values"
> > }
> >
> > + # If exceptions are disabled, mark tests expecting exceptions to be
> > enabled
> > + # as unsupported.
> > + if [regexp "(^|\n)\[^\n\]*: error: exception handling disabled" $text]
> > {
> > + return "::unsupported::exception handling disabled"
> > + }
>
> This is probably safe, but...
>
> > +
> > + if [regexp "(^|\n)\[^\n\]*: error: #error .__cpp_exceptions." $text] {
> > + return "::unsupported::exception handling disabled"
> > + }
>
> ...it looks like this would disable g++.dg/cpp1y/feat-neg.C for all
> targets. I assume this was motivated by g++.dg/cpp2a/feat-cxx2a.C,
> but the kind of effective-target tests you had in the original patch
> are probably better there. It might then be more robust to test that
> [check_effective_target_...] for the "exception handling disabled" case
> above as well, so that other targets aren't affected accidentally.
>
> It'd be good to test a target/multilib that has exceptions enabled by
> default to make sure there's no change in the number of unsupported
> tests (rather than just no new fails).
Apologies for the delayed response.
The messages caught in gcc-dg-prune will only be pruned if they haven't already
been caught by dg-warning/error/etc. So basically only if the regex being tested
would trigger an "excess errors" failure.
As a result, there was no change in passes/fails/unsupported on
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
Checking if exceptions are actually disabled before enabling those prunes is a
nice suggestion though, I'll add it to the revised patch.
Thanks,
Jozef
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
