On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 9:28 PM Jim Lin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I believe there is no reason to use -O9 for these two testcases. So I
> assumed it was a typo. The number 9 is next to 0 on the keyboard.
So there is not enough history on these 2. They were added to the repo
as -O9 back in 1997 when it looks like the testsuite was merged in a
whole to the cvs.
I suspect these testcases were failing at -O3 back then. So changing
it to -O0 seems wrong and unwanted.
Can you explain why you want to change them from -O9? GCC treats
-O[4-9] the same as -O3 without a warning so there is no failure with
GCC. Are you trying to compile the testsuite with say clang?
Thanks,
Andrew
> ---
> gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.mike/eh49.C | 2 +-
> gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.mike/eh52.C | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.mike/eh49.C
> b/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.mike/eh49.C
> index 1380ca02d82..ac6e52baa20 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.mike/eh49.C
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.mike/eh49.C
> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
> // { dg-do run { xfail sparc64-*-elf arm-*-pe } }
> -// { dg-options "-fexceptions -O9" }
> +// { dg-options "-fexceptions -O0" }
>
> void main1() {
> throw 1;
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.mike/eh52.C
> b/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.mike/eh52.C
> index 18b477c098b..7f44dba265a 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.mike/eh52.C
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.mike/eh52.C
> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
> // { dg-do run }
> -// { dg-options "-fexceptions -O9" }
> +// { dg-options "-fexceptions -O0" }
>
> int promote_mode (int mode, int *punsignedp)
> {
> --
> 2.43.5
>
