Thanks for taking care of this. Regards, Chad On Jun 17, 2011, at 1:48 PM, Richard Trieu wrote:
> Chad, > > Revision 133287 puts the new warning behind a flag and set to default ignore, > which should fix your test case (I think). I'll continue working on the > warning to iron out the problems. > > Richard. > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Chad Rosier <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jun 16, 2011, at 6:34 PM, Richard Trieu wrote: > >> Hey Chad, >> >> I am unfamiliar with how these cases are set up. What are the flags that >> are used to run this and what is the expected behavior from this test? It >> looks like the dg-warning marks which lines are allowed to have warnings, >> and not others. Is this correct? >> > > As Chris pointed out, I would see > http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/clang-tests/trunk/gcc-4_2-testsuite/README.txt > for directions on running the test suite. I believe your assumption about > dg-warning is correct, but I'm by no means an expert of how the nightly > testers work. > >> I think the problem might be because my patch introduces a warning at lines >> 32 & 33, which aren't expecting a warning. One is a comparison of NULL and >> a function. The other is a comparison of an array and NULL. Is this >> warning appropriate here or should these cases be excluded from the warning? >> > > Seems like a reasonable guess. Unfortunately, I don't know the intent of > your patch or the expected output from the individual test case, so I can't > really voice an opinion on the matter. Once you get the test suite running > locally you could try modifying the test case by adding the appropriate > dg-warning "" markers. If this fixes things and you are confident the > emitted error message is correct then you could submit a patch to the test > case to make the buildbot happy. > > Chad > > >> Richard. >> >> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Chad Rosier <[email protected]> wrote: >> Sorry about that! I see how that could make debugging difficult. >> >> The reported error is: >> g++.old-deja/g++.other/null1.C (test for excess errors) >> >> Chad >> >> On Jun 16, 2011, at 5:36 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: >> >>> Please don't post links to the internal Apple build bots, post the text of >>> the regression? =] Then we can make progress on which of the several test >>> cases in that file is misbehaving. >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Chad Rosier <[email protected]> wrote: >>> See: >>> http://smooshlab.apple.com:8013/builders/gccTestSuite_clang-x86_64-darwin10-RA__c%2B%2B/builds/854 >>> >> >> > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
