On 26.10.2019 23:57, Andreas Tobler wrote:
> On 04.10.19 19:04, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 9/30/19 12:47 PM, Andreas Tobler wrote:
>>> On 30.09.19 20:37, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
On 30.09.2019 19:47, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 07:41:00PM +0200, Andreas Tobler wrote:
>> --
On 04.10.19 19:04, Jeff Law wrote:
On 9/30/19 12:47 PM, Andreas Tobler wrote:
On 30.09.19 20:37, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
On 30.09.2019 19:47, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 07:41:00PM +0200, Andreas Tobler wrote:
--- fprintf-2.c (revision 276292)
+++ fprintf-2.c (working c
On 9/30/19 12:47 PM, Andreas Tobler wrote:
> On 30.09.19 20:37, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>> On 30.09.2019 19:47, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 07:41:00PM +0200, Andreas Tobler wrote:
--- fprintf-2.c (revision 276292)
+++ fprintf-2.c (working copy)
@@ -1,7 +1,8
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 07:47:54PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> So, can you try just
>{ dg-prune-output "warning: warning: \[^\n\r\]* possibly used unsafely;
> consider using" } */
> or if that doesn't work, with .* at start end end?
Or even just
{ dg-prune-output {(?n)warning: warning: .*
On 30.09.19 20:37, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
On 30.09.2019 19:47, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 07:41:00PM +0200, Andreas Tobler wrote:
--- fprintf-2.c (revision 276292)
+++ fprintf-2.c (working copy)
@@ -1,7 +1,8 @@
/* Verify that calls to fprintf don't get eliminated even if th
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 08:31:23PM +0200, Andreas Tobler wrote:
> Ok, yes it works too with your suggestion.
>
> Attached.
Ok for trunk.
> One question, doing it per test case is cheaper than in prune.exp? (Where we
> do it for 'all' test cases, needed or not.)
IMHO yes, doing it 20 or how
On 30.09.2019 19:47, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 07:41:00PM +0200, Andreas Tobler wrote:
>> --- fprintf-2.c (revision 276292)
>> +++ fprintf-2.c (working copy)
>> @@ -1,7 +1,8 @@
>> /* Verify that calls to fprintf don't get eliminated even if their
>> result on suc
On 30.09.19 19:47, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 07:41:00PM +0200, Andreas Tobler wrote:
--- fprintf-2.c (revision 276292)
+++ fprintf-2.c (working copy)
@@ -1,7 +1,8 @@
/* Verify that calls to fprintf don't get eliminated even if their
result on success can be computed at
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 07:41:00PM +0200, Andreas Tobler wrote:
> --- fprintf-2.c (revision 276292)
> +++ fprintf-2.c (working copy)
> @@ -1,7 +1,8 @@
> /* Verify that calls to fprintf don't get eliminated even if their
> result on success can be computed at compile time (they can
On 30.09.19 19:20, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 07:15:59PM +0200, Andreas Tobler wrote:
Hi all,
the below patch tries to silence a warning from the FreeBSD libc. This
warning currently makes all the test cases fail where we make use of the
tmpnam() function.
---
/usr/local/bin/
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 07:15:59PM +0200, Andreas Tobler wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> the below patch tries to silence a warning from the FreeBSD libc. This
> warning currently makes all the test cases fail where we make use of the
> tmpnam() function.
>
> ---
> /usr/local/bin/ld: /tmp//ccBQaYlC.o: in fu
11 matches
Mail list logo