* Jakub Jelinek:
> So, I guess void main (int) could be ok in some implementations, but I don't
> think that is the case of our. Florian, didn't you mean
> int
> main (void)
> or
> int
> main ()
> instead?
Exactly, it was a silly mistake.
> Note, I'm using
> int
> main ()
> {
> ...
> }
> in mos
* Thomas Schwinge:
> Hi Florian!
>
> Thanks for all your ongoing clean-up work!
>
> On 2023-11-10T23:07:55+0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> This change updates the gcc.c-torture/execute/ to avoid obsolete
>> language constructs. In the changed tests, use of the features
>> appears to be accidental
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 11:58:42AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > -main ()
> > +void
> > +main (int)
> > {
> >struct tiny x[3];
> >x[0].c = 10;
>
> The nvptx back end doesn't like that one:
>
> PASS: gcc.c-torture/execute/931004-13.c -O0 (test for excess errors)
> [-PASS:-]
Hi Florian!
Thanks for all your ongoing clean-up work!
On 2023-11-10T23:07:55+0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> This change updates the gcc.c-torture/execute/ to avoid obsolete
> language constructs. In the changed tests, use of the features
> appears to be accidental, and updating allows the tests
On 11/10/23 15:07, Florian Weimer wrote:
This change updates the gcc.c-torture/execute/ to avoid obsolete
language constructs. In the changed tests, use of the features
appears to be accidental, and updating allows the tests run with
the default compiler flags.
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.
