On 8 Aug 2012, at 5:13 PM, David Blaikie <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:37 PM, David Dean <[email protected]> wrote: >> Some of the dejagnu tests are failing after this change, can you verify that >> the output is correct and update the test cases? >> >> g++.dg/conversion/nullptr1.C (test for excess errors) >> g++.dg/init/null1.C (test for excess errors) >> g++.dg/init/self1.C (test for excess errors) > > Is there a sensible way to run this on a Linux machine or do I need to > perform various hackery on the scripts and/or have an Apple box handy?
I would expect that dejagnu behaves reasonably well on linux, but I haven't tried it. > Would it be easier for you to send me some logs & I can say yay or > nay? I can't quite tell (not being familiar with dejagnu) what the > current state of these tests are/where the expected output is compared > against the actual output. I'll send the logs and some brief commentary on them privately. > But in all 3 cases there's an "interesting" null pointer that my > diagnostic does catch & it's not unreasonable for it to do so, in my > opinion: I wasn't worried about false positives, but I was worried about the case you mention here: > The 3rd one actually has a "dg-error" comment on it, I'm not sure if > that's meant to be verifying that the compiler produces a diagnostic > on this line of code, but I don't think clang did diagnose that until > my change was made. I'll double check previous logs to see if was triggering a diagnostic or not. If it was producing a diagnostic before, should we now have both, or does the one satisfy both? -David _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
