On Thu, 1 Aug 2024, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> +Unsequenced functions without pointer or reference arguments are similar
> +to functions with the @code{const} attribute, except that @code{const}
> +attribute also requires finitness. So, both functions with @code{const}
s/finitness/finiteness/ (in all places).
> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c23-attr-reproducible-4.c.jj 2024-08-01
> 14:37:23.948824359 +0200
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c23-attr-reproducible-4.c 2024-08-01
> 14:37:23.948824359 +0200
> @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
> +/* Test C23 reproducible attribute: duplicates (allowed after N2557). */
The reference to N2557 seems anachronistic here, since the restrictions on
duplicates were removed some time before the unsequenced and reproducible
attributes were added to the working draft; there never was a time when
C23 supported those attributes without allowing duplicates. (The test
itself is fine; testing duplicates is a good thing to do.)
> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c23-attr-reproducible-6.c.jj 2024-08-01
> 14:37:23.948824359 +0200
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c23-attr-reproducible-6.c 2024-08-01
> 14:37:23.948824359 +0200
> @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
> +/* Test C23 reproducible attribute: composite type on ?:. */
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-options "-std=c23 -pedantic-errors" } */
> +
> +int
> +f1 () [[reproducible]]
> +{
> + return 42;
> +}
> +
> +int
> +f2 ()
> +{
> + return 43;
> +}
> +
> +int
> +f3 ()
> +{
> + return 44;
> +}
I don't see how this test relates to the "composite type on ?:" comment
(or that it's doing anything useful).
> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c23-attr-unsequenced-4.c.jj 2024-08-01
> 14:37:23.949824346 +0200
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c23-attr-unsequenced-4.c 2024-08-01
> 14:37:23.949824346 +0200
> @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
> +/* Test C23 unsequenced attribute: duplicates (allowed after N2557). */
Likewise here.
> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c23-attr-unsequenced-6.c.jj 2024-08-01
> 14:37:23.949824346 +0200
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c23-attr-unsequenced-6.c 2024-08-01
> 14:37:23.949824346 +0200
> @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
> +/* Test C23 unsequenced attribute: composite type on ?:. */
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-options "-std=c23 -pedantic-errors" } */
> +
> +int
> +f1 () [[unsequenced]]
> +{
> + return 42;
> +}
> +
> +int
> +f2 ()
> +{
> + return 43;
> +}
> +
> +int
> +f3 ()
> +{
> + return 44;
> +}
And likewise here.
The patch is OK with the above fixed in the absence of any objections
within a week. (I'm supposing fixed here means removing
c23-attr-reproducible-6.c and c23-attr-unsequenced-6.c; if there's some
different test meant to be there, or some reason those tests are in fact
useful, then the updated / new tests should be reviewed.)
--
Joseph S. Myers
josmy...@redhat.com
