Hi Nathaniel, >> > There are a couple of other tests that appear to potentially have a >> > similar issue: >> > >> > global-2_a.C >> > 21:// { dg-final { scan-lang-dump-not {Reachable GMF '::printf[^\n']*' >> > added} module } } >> > >> > global-3_a.C >> > 15:// { dg-final { scan-lang-dump-not {Reachable GMF '::printf[^'\n]*' >> > added} module } } >> >> neither module file contains "Reachable GMF" at all, with ::printf or >> otherwise. >> > > Yes, I think the test is aiming to check that such a declaration is not > added at all, and so that's correct. But if for some reason on some > system it did add "::std::printf" that would be a bug that would not be > caught by this test.
understood. However, the question about global-3_a.C remains which contains no printf at all. >> > Which I suppose maybe also should be updated in the same way; I guess >> > they don't fail on Solaris because they aren't actually correctly >> > testing what they think they are. >> >> Perhaps, but it would be useful to first understand what those tests are >> supposed to look like. WRT global-3_a.C, printf doesn't occur at all, >> so this may just be a case of copy-and-paste. >> >> Maybe Nathan, who authored the tests, can shed some light. >> >> > Otherwise LGTM. >> >> Thanks. I'll go ahead and commit the patch as is, asjusting the other >> two once it's become clear what they should look like. >> > > Ah, I should have been clearer: I'm not sure I can approve, but I've > CC'd Jason in. Sorry, I already committed the patch. I can revert, of course, if that's inappropriate. OTOH, it could be considered obvious ;-) Rainer -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University