On 04/27/2017 04:04 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 04/26/2017 01:57 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
I guess those should be decided case by case
whether we want relative, absolute or saved line numbers. If the
diagnostic is within the same function or code block as the stuff it is
relative to, relative
On 04/27/2017 10:43 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 04/26/2017 01:57 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 01:48:03PM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
[ reposting with patch removed, was too big for gcc-patches@ ]
I see in various tests you've ended up with ... { target ... } . }
I think it
On 04/26/2017 01:57 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
I guess those should be decided case by case
whether we want relative, absolute or saved line numbers. If the
diagnostic is within the same function or code block as the stuff it is
relative to, relative is fine, but if e.g. the messages are just at
On 04/26/2017 01:57 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 01:48:03PM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
[ reposting with patch removed, was too big for gcc-patches@ ]
I see in various tests you've ended up with ... { target ... } . }
I think it would be better to just use ... { target ...
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 01:48:03PM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
> [ reposting with patch removed, was too big for gcc-patches@ ]
I see in various tests you've ended up with ... { target ... } . }
I think it would be better to just use ... { target ... } }
in that case, . is the default, and if
[ reposting with patch removed, was too big for gcc-patches@ ]
On 04/26/2017 01:33 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 03/27/2017 03:11 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 24/03/17 18:13, Mike Stump wrote:
On Mar 24, 2017, at 5:58 AM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
- { /* { dg-warning
On 28/03/17 10:23, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi!
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 16:46:19 +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
I've run the gcc testsuite for target nvptx-none and ran into "test for
excess errors" FAILs due to:
...
sorry, unimplemented: target cannot support alloca.
...
This
Hi!
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 16:46:19 +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
> I've run the gcc testsuite for target nvptx-none and ran into "test for
> excess errors" FAILs due to:
> ...
> sorry, unimplemented: target cannot support alloca.
> ...
>
> This patch marks those testcases as
On 24/03/17 18:13, Mike Stump wrote:
On Mar 24, 2017, at 5:58 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
- { /* { dg-warning "statement may fall through" "" { target c } 23 } */
- int a[i]; /* { dg-warning "statement may fall through" "" { target c++
} 24 } */
+ {
On 24/03/17 13:38, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Tom,
On 23/03/17 18:25, Mike Stump wrote:
On Mar 23, 2017, at 8:46 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
I've run the gcc testsuite for target nvptx-none and ran into "test for
excess errors" FAILs due to:
...
sorry, unimplemented: target
On Mar 24, 2017, at 5:58 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
> - { /* { dg-warning "statement may fall through" "" { target c } 23 } */
> - int a[i]; /* { dg-warning "statement may fall through" "" { target c++
> } 24 } */
> + { /* { dg-warning "statement may fall
Hi Richard,
>> Similar
>>
>> -m64
>> FAIL: gcc.dg/Walloca-2.c note (test for warnings, line 38)
>> FAIL: gcc.dg/Wvla-larger-than-2.c note (test for warnings, line 25)
>>
>> -m32
>> FAIL: gcc.dg/Walloca-1.c (test for warnings, line 26)
>> FAIL: gcc.dg/Walloca-1.c (test for excess errors)
>> FAIL:
Hi Richard,
> Similar
>
> -m64
> FAIL: gcc.dg/Walloca-2.c note (test for warnings, line 38)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/Wvla-larger-than-2.c note (test for warnings, line 25)
>
> -m32
> FAIL: gcc.dg/Walloca-1.c (test for warnings, line 26)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/Walloca-1.c (test for excess errors)
> FAIL:
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
>> On 23/03/17 18:25, Mike Stump wrote:
>>> On Mar 23, 2017, at 8:46 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
I've run the gcc testsuite for target nvptx-none and ran into "test for
Hi Tom,
> On 23/03/17 18:25, Mike Stump wrote:
>> On Mar 23, 2017, at 8:46 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>>
>>> I've run the gcc testsuite for target nvptx-none and ran into "test for
>>> excess errors" FAILs due to:
>>> ...
>>> sorry, unimplemented: target cannot support
On 23/03/17 18:25, Mike Stump wrote:
On Mar 23, 2017, at 8:46 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
I've run the gcc testsuite for target nvptx-none and ran into "test for excess
errors" FAILs due to:
...
sorry, unimplemented: target cannot support alloca.
We'd encourage ports to
On Mar 23, 2017, at 8:46 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>
> I've run the gcc testsuite for target nvptx-none and ran into "test for
> excess errors" FAILs due to:
> ...
> sorry, unimplemented: target cannot support alloca.
We'd encourage ports to support alloca. :-)
> OK for
On 23/03/17 17:24, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi Tom!
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 16:46:19 +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
I've run the gcc testsuite for target nvptx-none and ran into "test for
excess errors" FAILs due to:
...
sorry, unimplemented: target cannot support alloca.
...
Hi Tom!
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 16:46:19 +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
> I've run the gcc testsuite for target nvptx-none and ran into "test for
> excess errors" FAILs due to:
> ...
> sorry, unimplemented: target cannot support alloca.
> ...
>
> This patch marks those
Hi,
I've run the gcc testsuite for target nvptx-none and ran into "test for
excess errors" FAILs due to:
...
sorry, unimplemented: target cannot support alloca.
...
This patch marks those testcases as requiring alloca.
OK for trunk for stage1?
Thanks,
- Tom
2017-03-23 Tom de Vries
20 matches
Mail list logo