On Apr 15, 2018, at 6:29 PM, Segher Boessenkool <seg...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 06:08:44PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote: >> On Apr 15, 2018, at 5:50 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 04:53:27PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote: >>>> 2018-04-15 Bill Schmidt <wschm...@linux.ibm.com> >>>> >>>> PR testsuite/85326 >>>> * g++.dg/undef-bool-1.C: New file. >>> >>> Tests really shouldn't be added to g++.dg/ directly, but to subdirectories >>> thereof. >>> In this case, I think g++.dg/ext/undef-bool-1.C is the right location. >>> And see below. >>> >>> Also, just a single space in between : and description in the ChangeLog >>> file. Otherwise LGTM, but please wait for PowerPC maintainer ack. >>> >>>> * gcc.target/powerpc/powerpc.exp: Remove .C support. >>>> * gcc.target/powerpc/undef-bool-1.C: Remove file. >>>> >>>> >>>> Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/undef-bool-1.C >>>> =================================================================== >>>> --- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/undef-bool-1.C (nonexistent) >>>> +++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/undef-bool-1.C (working copy) >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ >>>> +/* { dg-do compile { target { powerpc*-*-* } } } */ >>>> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -std=c++11 -DNO_WARN_X86_INTRINSICS" } */ >>> >>> g++.dg/ tests are cycled through some or all -std= options, so >>> rather than -std=c++11 you should require effective target c++11, >>> or if you want to run it for -std=c++11 only and not others, c++11only. >>> Though in this testcase I don't see a reason why it wouldn't work even with >>> c++14, c++17 or c++2a. >> >> OK, agreed on all fronts. Segher, okay with these changes? > > Sure! But does it even need c++11? Maybe something in the headers does? > (/me tries... Seems to work fine with -std=c++98, too?)
Agreed, there shouldn't be a need to check it so long as we're guaranteed to have it tested for c++11. I'll remove the option. Thanks! Bill > > Thanks for the patch, > > > Segher