[Bug testsuite/106120] [13 regression] g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-overflow-4.C fails since r13-1268-g8c99e307b20c50
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106120 --- Comment #13 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Hans-Peter Nilsson : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e935151bad1c2a02dc6a31fce3cc21b17d616243 commit r14-5767-ge935151bad1c2a02dc6a31fce3cc21b17d616243 Author: Hans-Peter Nilsson Date: Wed Nov 22 02:54:29 2023 +0100 testsuite: Tweak xfail bogus g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-overflow-4.C:144, PR106120 The conditions under which this this bogus warning is emitted has changed to not happen for 32-bit targets anymore. Adjust accordingly. PR testsuite/106120 * g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-overflow-4.C:144 XFAIL bogus warning for lp64 targets with c++98.
[Bug testsuite/106120] [13 regression] g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-overflow-4.C fails since r13-1268-g8c99e307b20c50
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106120
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #11 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #10)
>> Since 20230106, this test produces an XPASS, according to gcc-testresults
>> postings this happens everywhere:
>>
>> +XPASS: g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-overflow-4.C -std=gnu++98 pr106120 (test for
>> bogus messages, line 144)
>>
>> The corresponding line is
>>
>> T (S (2), new int16_t[r_imin_imax + 1]); // { dg-bogus "into a region of
>> size" "pr106120" { xfail { c++98_only } } }
>>
>> I think that xfail should just be removed?
>
> Yes, though I think the date 20230106 is wrong (at least regarding the
> "everywhere") and maybe a typo for 20231006, at least according to my own logs
> - where I unsurprisingly don't track XPASS. Gotta fix that.
Actually, it's 20231106, I just cannot type. The XPASSes are included
in the make mail-report.log output, so I have them archived for my
targets.
Thanks for fixing this.
[Bug testsuite/106120] [13 regression] g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-overflow-4.C fails since r13-1268-g8c99e307b20c50
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106120
--- Comment #11 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #10)
> Since 20230106, this test produces an XPASS, according to gcc-testresults
> postings this happens everywhere:
>
> +XPASS: g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-overflow-4.C -std=gnu++98 pr106120 (test for
> bogus messages, line 144)
>
> The corresponding line is
>
> T (S (2), new int16_t[r_imin_imax + 1]); // { dg-bogus "into a region of
> size" "pr106120" { xfail { c++98_only } } }
>
> I think that xfail should just be removed?
Yes, though I think the date 20230106 is wrong (at least regarding the
"everywhere") and maybe a typo for 20231006, at least according to my own logs
- where I unsurprisingly don't track XPASS. Gotta fix that.
[Bug testsuite/106120] [13 regression] g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-overflow-4.C fails since r13-1268-g8c99e307b20c50
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106120
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10 from Rainer Orth ---
Since 20230106, this test produces an XPASS, according to gcc-testresults
postings this happens everywhere:
+XPASS: g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-overflow-4.C -std=gnu++98 pr106120 (test for
bogus messages, line 144)
The corresponding line is
T (S (2), new int16_t[r_imin_imax + 1]); // { dg-bogus "into a region of
size" "pr106120" { xfail { c++98_only } } }
I think that xfail should just be removed?
[Bug testsuite/106120] [13 regression] g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-overflow-4.C fails since r13-1268-g8c99e307b20c50
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106120 Hans-Peter Nilsson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #9 from Hans-Peter Nilsson --- (In reply to seurer from comment #8) > Yes, in the test run I just did it worked. Ok, as this PR was "testsuite" as opposed to an underlying issue, I'm closing this.
[Bug testsuite/106120] [13 regression] g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-overflow-4.C fails since r13-1268-g8c99e307b20c50
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106120 --- Comment #8 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- Yes, in the test run I just did it worked.
[Bug testsuite/106120] [13 regression] g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-overflow-4.C fails since r13-1268-g8c99e307b20c50
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106120 --- Comment #7 from Hans-Peter Nilsson --- Can the reporter please affirm that the issue is now solved (ppc64 m32 BE)? It is for cris-elf, but it wouldn't be right closing someone elses bug-report.
[Bug testsuite/106120] [13 regression] g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-overflow-4.C fails since r13-1268-g8c99e307b20c50
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106120 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Hans-Peter Nilsson : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c47f76c16bf7b3108e762d4b8b16fbb0c9c75187 commit r13-5765-gc47f76c16bf7b3108e762d4b8b16fbb0c9c75187 Author: Hans-Peter Nilsson Date: Tue Feb 7 17:28:50 2023 +0100 testsuite: XFAIL bogus g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-overflow-4.C:144, PR106120 There was a commit r13-2082-gbf13a13c65bd06 "c++: remove some xfails" (not referencing the PR) that dealt with part of the PR, but didn't xfail the ilp32-specific (bogus) warning mentioned in the PR. PR testsuite/106120 * g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-overflow-4.C:144 XFAIL bogus warning for ilp32 targets with c++98.
[Bug testsuite/106120] [13 regression] g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-overflow-4.C fails since r13-1268-g8c99e307b20c50
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106120 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1
[Bug testsuite/106120] [13 regression] g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-overflow-4.C fails since r13-1268-g8c99e307b20c50
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106120 John David Anglin changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2022-12-14 Ever confirmed|0 |1 Target|powerpc64-linux-gnu |powerpc64-linux-gnu ||hppa-unknown-linux-gnu Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org Host|powerpc64-linux-gnu |powerpc64-linux-gnu ||hppa-unknown-linux-gnu Build|powerpc64-linux-gnu |powerpc64-linux-gnu ||hppa-unknown-linux-gnu
[Bug testsuite/106120] [13 regression] g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-overflow-4.C fails since r13-1268-g8c99e307b20c50
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106120 --- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez --- (In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #4) > The XPASS:es seem to be the same for everyone, with the FAIL only appearing > on ILP32. > > Aldy, how about correcting those xfail markers and adding one for ILP32? Sounds fine to me. I won't be able to get to it until next week, so if you want to whip up a patch and CC me, I'd be glad to approve it.
[Bug testsuite/106120] [13 regression] g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-overflow-4.C fails since r13-1268-g8c99e307b20c50
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106120 --- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson --- The XPASS:es seem to be the same for everyone, with the FAIL only appearing on ILP32. Aldy, how about correcting those xfail markers and adding one for ILP32?
[Bug testsuite/106120] [13 regression] g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-overflow-4.C fails since r13-1268-g8c99e307b20c50
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106120 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Component|other |testsuite Target Milestone|--- |13.0
