Re: RFC: Bugzilla keyword "interp" where it is not clear if a program is standard-conforming or not

2025-02-11 Thread Sam James via Gcc 
Thomas Koenig via Gcc  writes:

> Hello world,
>
> looking at a few Fortran bug reports, I found some cases where
> it was not clear if the program in question was standard-conforming
> or not.  I would propose to add a keyword for that, tentatively
> called "interp".
>
> Comments? Suggestions for a different name?  Should I just go ahead
> and create it?

The discussion reminds me a bit of some of the issues raised in
https://shafik.github.io/c++/llvm/2024/10/17/triaging-clang-fronend-bugs.html.

"diverges-from" (-gcc, -msvc, we could have edg, etc), "extension:gnu", 
"extension:microsoft" are some that
LLVM uses.

thanks,
sam

Re: RFC: Bugzilla keyword "interp" where it is not clear if a program is standard-conforming or not

2025-02-11 Thread Thomas Koenig via Gcc 

Am 10.02.25 um 23:44 schrieb Thomas Schwinge:

Indeed 'need-language-lawyering' (or similar) would've been my suggestion
for the new keyword, but I resisted the color-of-bike-shed opportunity.


My fear would be that people would misspell laywer :-)

I've added needs-stdcheck and will go through a few bugs to see where
I can reasonably add this.

Fortran is a complicated language, and quite often the question is not
if a program is illegal or not, but what it should do.

Best regards

Thomas

Re: On master, with checking=all, I get dozens of fails for g++, already for months on end.

2025-02-11 Thread Toon Moene 

On 2/9/25 11:34, Nathaniel Shead wrote:


On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 10:57:19AM +0100, Toon Moene wrote:

Compare a standard gcc build:

https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2025-February/837664.html

with this one using checking=all:

https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2025-February/837708.html

Other languages do not seem to be affected.

A sample:

FAIL: g++.dg/modules/xtreme-header-8.C -std=c++17 (internal compiler error:
Segmentation fault)
FAIL: g++.dg/modules/xtreme-header-8.C -std=c++17 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/modules/xtreme-header-8.C module-cmi xstd (gcm.cache/xstd.gcm)
FAIL: g++.dg/modules/xtreme-header-8.C -std=c++2a (internal compiler error:
Segmentation fault)
FAIL: g++.dg/modules/xtreme-header-8.C -std=c++2a (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/modules/xtreme-header-8.C module-cmi xstd (gcm.cache/xstd.gcm)

Hope this is useful.

Kind regards,

--
Toon Moene - e-mail: t...@moene.org - phone: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG  Maartensdijk, The Netherlands



Thanks, I've reduced the issue with the modules testcases and created
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118807 for this.


I think this has worked:

https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-cvs/2025-February/417320.html

as shown in:

https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2025-February/838151.html

Very good !

--
Toon Moene - e-mail: t...@moene.org - phone: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG  Maartensdijk, The Netherlands