> From: Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com>
> Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 17:20:09 +0000
> PR libstdc++/112564
> * include/std/stacktrace (formatter::format): Format according
> to format-spec.
> * include/std/thread (formatter::format): Use _Align_right as
> default.
> * testsuite/19_diagnostics/stacktrace/output.cc: Check
> fill-and-align handling. Change compile test to run.
> * testsuite/30_threads/thread/id/output.cc: Check fill-and-align
> handling.
You already know this, so JFTR: this introduced a regression
for some targets, logged as PR112630.
Was this change deliberate:
> --- a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/19_diagnostics/stacktrace/output.cc
> +++ b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/19_diagnostics/stacktrace/output.cc
> @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
> -// { dg-do compile { target c++23 } }
> +// { dg-options "-lstdc++exp" }
> +// { dg-do run { target c++23 } }
> // { dg-require-effective-target stacktrace }
> // { dg-add-options no_pch }
i.e. changing from dg-compile to dg-run?
I'm guessing so. Though the changelog entry and post isn't
explicit, the use of VERIFY is rather clear and most tests
in 19_diagnostics/stacktrace are dg-run.
If so, can the "dg-run-ness" of the test please move to a
separate test and let 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/output.cc be
just dg-compile? This particular test may not warrant the
consideration, but more so a pattern to follow for other
tests.
brgds, H-P
PS. Sorry, I have no idea why regarding the underlying multi-target problem
