On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 11:03:08AM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > 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.
Hmm, by the log file you mean g++.log? Currently, if you run a dg-ice test, and the test still ICEs, the g++.log file (but not the stdout of make check-c++!) will have: Executing on host: ... xg++ with options ... spawn -ignore SIGHUP ... xg++ with options ... .../foo.C:14:15: internal compiler error: in poplevel_class, at cp/name-lookup.c:4225 <backtrace> compiler exited with status 1 XFAIL: g++.dg/foo.C -std=c++17 (internal compiler error) PASS: g++.dg/foo.C -std=c++17 (test for excess errors) Which one of these would you not like to see? The second one, in parens, can be changed easily. The first one, the actual output generated by dejagnu's default_target_compile, I don't think I can change at all. g++_target_compile invokes set result [target_compile $source $dest $type $options] and we have no control over the target_compile proc. Can you give me more details? Hopefully we'll work something out that doesn't break your workflow. Marek
