Hi Jakub,
On 20 Jan 2025, at 10:28, Simon Martin wrote:
> Hi Jakub,
>
> On 20 Jan 2025, at 10:15, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 08:52:17AM +0000, Simon Martin wrote:
>>> On 12 Jan 2025, at 12:10, Simon Martin wrote:
>>>
>>>> While testing an unrelated C++ patch with "make check-c++-all", I
>>>> noticed that r15-6760-g38a13ea4117b96 added a test case that fails
>>>> with
>>>> -fimplicit-constexpr.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that this test unconditionally expects an error
>>>> stating
>>>> that a non-constexpr function is called, but that function is
>>>> auto-magically constexpr'd under -fimplicit-constexpr.
>>
>> Is that the only testcase that regresses with -fimplicit-constexpr?
>> I'd expect tons of others...
> Actually yes, I test all my patches with check-c++-all and this is the
> only case that fails in that mode and does not with standard make
> check.
>
>>>> This patch adapts the test to also pass with -fimplicit-constexpr.
>>>>
>>>> Successfully tested on x86_64-apple-darwin19.6.0 with
>>>> make check-c++-all RUNTESTFLAGS="dg.exp=constexpr-asm-5.C"
>>> Ping? This is borderline obvious but since I’ve never played with
>>> inline assembly, I’d appreciate a second pair of eyes.
>>
>> Wouldn't it be easier to just add -fno-implicit-constexpr to
>> dg-additional-options?
> That would work indeed, and it’s true that it’s probably more in
> the
> spirit of that test. I’m happy to do that instead - I’ll do
> another
> testsuite run with that and I can merge it later today if that works
> for
> you.
Here’s the updated patch, successfully tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
with “make check-c++-all”. OK?
Thanks, Simon
From eccf73af1b3555be3e02ea2f3b1ca0be32c81cc1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Simon Martin <si...@nasilyan.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2025 20:30:59 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] testsuite: Fix test failing with -fimplicit-constexpr
[PR118277]
While testing an unrelated C++ patch with "make check-c++-all", I
noticed that r15-6760-g38a13ea4117b96 added a test case that fails with
-fimplicit-constexpr.
The problem is that this test unconditionally expects an error stating
that a non-constexpr function is called, but that function is
auto-magically constexpr'd under -fimplicit-constexpr.
As suggested by Jakub, this patch simply passes -fno-implicit-constexpr
in that test.
Successfully tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu with "make check-c++-all".
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/cpp1z/constexpr-asm-5.C: Pass -fno-implicit-constexpr.
---
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1z/constexpr-asm-5.C | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1z/constexpr-asm-5.C
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1z/constexpr-asm-5.C
index 1c20b9dfec1..bcecea9d6b5 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1z/constexpr-asm-5.C
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1z/constexpr-asm-5.C
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
// { dg-options "" }
// Override any default-'-fno-exceptions':
-// { dg-additional-options -fexceptions }
+// { dg-additional-options "-fexceptions -fno-implicit-constexpr" }
struct A {};
struct B { int size; };
--
2.44.0
