On Jun 19, 2011, at 2:12 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Chad Rosier <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for taking care of this. > > I just turned this warning back on with r133384. I've checked and we now have > tests in the Clang suite that should cover the same cases as the GCC test > suite covered. I'll revert if I see smooshy fail on it though and investigate.
Ok. Thanks for letting me know. Chad > > > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
