Received welcome message.
Hello, I have received the confirming mail for my application on "write after approval". Thanks, all. p.s. Steve, I think I can commit the patch for PR18827 myself. If you reviewed, please notify me. Best Regards, Feng Wang _ Do You Yahoo!? 150万曲MP3疯狂搜，带您闯入音乐殿堂 http://music.yisou.com/ 美女明星应有尽有，搜遍美图、艳图和酷图 http://image.yisou.com 1G就是1000兆，雅虎电邮自助扩容！ http://cn.rd.yahoo.com/mail_cn/tag/1g/*http://cn.mail.yahoo.com/event/mail_1g/
How to write testcase with two warnings on one line?
Hi,
I want to write a testcase. The compiler gives two separated warnings on one
statement. How to write this with Dejagnu?
I tried:
{ dg-warning "Warning1" "Warning2" }
and
{ dg-warning "Warning1" 8}
{ dg-warning "Warning2" 8}
8 is the line number of the statment.
But alwarys get excess errors.
The testcase is used to test one patch for gfortran. Sorry have no more
concrete program for this question.
Best Regards,
Feng Wang
--
Creative Compiler Research Group,
National University of Defense Technology, China.
___
雅虎免费G邮箱－No.1的防毒防垃圾超大邮箱
http://cn.mail.yahoo.com/?id=77072
回复： Re: How to write testcase with two warnings on one line?
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Quoting Feng Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I want to write a testcase. The compiler gives two separated warnings on
> one
> > statement. How to write this with Dejagnu?
>
> If the loci are different, it is
> possible to split the line between the warnings and then proceed as usual,
> say:
> do_first_thing & ! { dg-warning "a" }
>& do_second_thing ! { dg-warning "b" }
>
This is ok. Thanks, Tobi.
Best Regards,
Feng Wang
--
Creative Compiler Research Group,
National University of Defense Technology, China.
___
雅虎免费G邮箱－中国第一绝无垃圾邮件骚扰超大邮箱
http://cn.mail.yahoo.com/?id=77071
Re: How to write testcase with two warnings on one line?
--- "Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>写道:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Feng Wang wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I want to write a testcase. The compiler gives two separated warnings on
> one
> > statement. How to write this with Dejagnu?
> >
> > I tried:
> > { dg-warning "Warning1" "Warning2" }
> > and
> > { dg-warning "Warning1" 8}
> > { dg-warning "Warning2" 8}
> > 8 is the line number of the statment.
>
> The correct way of writing warning tests with a line number is
>
> { dg-warning "warning" } (on original line, no number needed)
> { dg-warning "warning 2" "description" { target *-*-* } 8 } (for each
> other warning)
>
> The description is needed and needs to be nonempty and distinct for the
> second and subsequent warnings on a given line, because it is used to form
> the distinct test assertion names which appear after PASS or FAIL in the
> .sum files - having multiple tests with the same name causes ambiguity for
> regression testers.
>
This is ok. Thanks. And add one point, { target *-*-* } is also needed even we
test on all target. If we give the line number, the target is needed. This is
not mentioned in http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/HowToPrepareATestcase . Maybe the page
need updating.
Best Regards,
Feng Wang
--
Creative Compiler Research Group,
National University of Defense Technology, China.
___
雅虎免费G邮箱－中国第一绝无垃圾邮件骚扰超大邮箱
http://cn.mail.yahoo.com/?id=77071
Warnings when build gcc-4.0.2
When building gcc-4.0.2 I find many warnings about redefined HAVE_DECL_GETOPT. Are they what we expect? version: 4.0.2 20050711 (prerelease) configuration: ../gcc/configure --prefix=/home/wf/local --enable-languages=c,f95 host and target: i686-pc-linux-gnu #grep warning buildlog.txt [snip] ./auto-host.h:250:1: warning: "HAVE_DECL_GETOPT" redefined ../../gcc/gcc/tsystem.h:40:1: warning: this is the location of the previous defi ./auto-host.h:250:1: warning: "HAVE_DECL_GETOPT" redefined ../../gcc/gcc/tsystem.h:40:1: warning: this is the location of the previous defi ./auto-host.h:250:1: warning: "HAVE_DECL_GETOPT" redefined ../../gcc/gcc/tsystem.h:40:1: warning: this is the location of the previous defi ./auto-host.h:250:1: warning: "HAVE_DECL_GETOPT" redefined ../../gcc/gcc/tsystem.h:40:1: warning: this is the location of the previous defi ./auto-host.h:250:1: warning: "HAVE_DECL_GETOPT" redefined ../../gcc/gcc/tsystem.h:40:1: warning: this is the location of the previous defi ./auto-host.h:250:1: warning: "HAVE_DECL_GETOPT" redefined ../../gcc/gcc/tsystem.h:40:1: warning: this is the location of the previous defi ./auto-host.h:250:1: warning: "HAVE_DECL_GETOPT" redefined ../../gcc/gcc/tsystem.h:40:1: warning: this is the location of the previous defi ./auto-host.h:250:1: warning: "HAVE_DECL_GETOPT" redefined ../../gcc/gcc/tsystem.h:40:1: warning: this is the location of the previous defi ./auto-host.h:250:1: warning: "HAVE_DECL_GETOPT" redefined ../../gcc/gcc/tsystem.h:40:1: warning: this is the location of the previous defi ./auto-host.h:250:1: warning: "HAVE_DECL_GETOPT" redefined ../../gcc/gcc/tsystem.h:40:1: warning: this is the location of the previous defi ./auto-host.h:250:1: warning: "HAVE_DECL_GETOPT" redefined ../../gcc/gcc/tsystem.h:40:1: warning: this is the location of the previous defi [snip] Best Regards, Feng Wang -- Creative Compiler Research Group, National University of Defense Technology, China. __ 赶快注册雅虎超大容量免费邮箱? http://cn.mail.yahoo.com
Re: RFC: future gfortran development and subversion
--- Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thomas, > > >Currently, gfortran is in a half-usable state. It is not yet > >ready as a replacement for g77 (see PR 19292) and there are quite > >a lot of things it gets wrong with Fortran 95. > > > I think that this is way too strong. Of the outstanding PR19292 "bugs": > > > 22290 Optimize Assigned GOTO to cause error with -O1 or higher - we seem to > have a fix for this(?) > Patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2005-10/msg00194.html But has not been reviewed. Best Regards, Feng Wang -- Creative Compiler Research Group, National University of Defense Technology, China. __ Meet your soulmate! Yahoo! Asia presents Meetic - where millions of singles gather http://asia.yahoo.com/meetic
Build failed on trunk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] trunk]$ ../trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,fortran
--prefix=/home/wf/local
[EMAIL PROTECTED] trunk]$ make
[snip]
make[3]: Entering directory `/home/wf/svngcc/trunkbld/libiberty'
if [ x"" != x ]; then \
gcc -c -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -g -I. -I../../trunk/libiberty/../include -W -Wall
-pe
dantic -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes ../../trunk/libiberty/pexecute.c -o
pic/pexecute.o; \
else true; fi
gcc -c -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -g -I. -I../../trunk/libiberty/../include -W -Wall
-peda
ntic -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes ../../trunk/libiberty/pexecute.c -o
pex
ecute.o
../../trunk/libiberty/pexecute.c: In function `pwait':
../../trunk/libiberty/pexecute.c:106: parse error before "return"
make[3]: *** [pexecute.o] Error 1
make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/wf/svngcc/trunkbld/libiberty'
make[2]: *** [all-stage1-libiberty] Error 2
make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/wf/svngcc/trunkbld'
make[1]: *** [stage1-bubble] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/wf/svngcc/trunkbld'
make: *** [all] Error 2
I think this is caused by a typos error in libiberty/pexecute.c. Doesn't anyone
else see it?
The patch:
Index: libiberty/pexecute.c
===
--- libiberty/pexecute.c(revision 111325)
+++ libiberty/pexecute.c(working copy)
@@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ pwait (int pid, int *status, int flags A
vector = XNEWVEC (int, idx);
if (!pex_get_status (pex, idx, vector))
{
- free (vector)
+ free (vector);
return -1;
}
*status = vector[pid];
Best Regards,
Feng Wang
--
Creative Compiler Research Group,
National University of Defense Technology, China.
___
雅虎1G免费邮箱百分百防垃圾信
http://cn.mail.yahoo.com/
回复： Re: Build failed on trunk
--- DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>写道: > > > I think this is caused by a typos error in libiberty/pexecute.c. Doesn't > anyone > > else see it? > > Already fixed. > OK. Thanks. Feng Wang ___ 雅虎1G免费邮箱百分百防垃圾信 http://cn.mail.yahoo.com/
