On 8/4/20 8:54 PM, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 03:33:23PM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
I think the read of the room is that people think it would be generally useful,
so let approve the general plan.
Cool.
So, now we are down to the fine details. Please do see just how far you can
stretch the existing mechanisms to cover what you need to do. I think the
existing mechanisms should be able to cover it all; but the devil is in the
details and those matter.
At this point I'm only proposing one new directive, dg-ice. I think we can't
really do without it. The other one was a matter of convenience.
I've realized I have a concern. Grepping (or searching in an editor
buffer) the log file for 'internal compiler error' to find actual
regressions is a thing I want to still be able to do (perhaps with
alternative spelling, I don't care). I don't want to see the ICEs of
tests that are expected to ICE.
I think that means there has to be a positive marker on the unexpected
ICEs, rather than lack of an expected marker on them.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
