On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 11/13/13 09:00, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Jeff" == Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> writes: >> >> >> Jeff> Given the problems Ian outlined around adding Go to the default >> Jeff> languages and the build time issues with using Ada instead of Java, >> Jeff> I'm unsure how best to proceed. >> >> IIRC from upthread the main reason to keep one of these languages is >> -fnon-call-exceptions testing. >> >> How about just writing some tests for that, in C++? It may not be quite >> as good but it seems like it could be a reasonable first pass; with more >> obscure issues caught by subsequent testing, much as is the case for >> non-core targets. > > The biggest issue with this approach is when we find a non-call-exceptions > issue, the source language for the testcase is going to likely be Java, Ada > or Go. Converting that to C++ can be a bit painful. > > I'd certainly like to see such tests, but I fear getting any kind of decent > coverage (relative to what we get today building Ada or GCJ) is going to > take a *long* time.
You can add a -fnon-call-exceptions torture case to the g++.dg/torture case and at least get all the ICEs for free (that's most cases). Richard. > jeff
