RFA: Fix libiberty testsuite failure
diff mbox series

Message ID 87y2u28b5g.fsf@redhat.com
State New
Headers show
Series
  • RFA: Fix libiberty testsuite failure
Related show

Commit Message

Nick Clifton Jan. 20, 2020, 2:17 p.m. UTC
Hi Ian,

  The libiberty testsuite in the gcc mainline is currently failing on
  the last test:

    FAIL at line 1452, options :
    in:  _Z3fooILPv0EEvPN9enable_ifIXeqT_LDnEEvE4typeE
    out: void foo<(void*)0>(enable_if<((void*)0)==(decltype(nullptr)), void>::type*)
    exp: void foo<(void*)0>(enable_if<((void*)0)==((decltype(nullptr))), void>::type*)

  To me it looks like the expected demangling is incorrect - it wants a
  double set of parentheses around decltype(nullptr) when I think that
  only one is needed.  So I would like to apply the patch below to fix
  this.

  Is this OK ?

Cheers
  Nick

libiberty/ChangeLog
2020-01-20  Nick Clifton  <nickc@redhat.com>

	* testsuite/demangle-expected: Fix expected demangling.

Comments

Ian Lance Taylor Jan. 20, 2020, 3:58 p.m. UTC | #1
Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com> writes:

> Hi Ian,
>
>   The libiberty testsuite in the gcc mainline is currently failing on
>   the last test:
>
>     FAIL at line 1452, options :
>     in:  _Z3fooILPv0EEvPN9enable_ifIXeqT_LDnEEvE4typeE
>     out: void foo<(void*)0>(enable_if<((void*)0)==(decltype(nullptr)), void>::type*)
>     exp: void foo<(void*)0>(enable_if<((void*)0)==((decltype(nullptr))), void>::type*)
>
>   To me it looks like the expected demangling is incorrect - it wants a
>   double set of parentheses around decltype(nullptr) when I think that
>   only one is needed.  So I would like to apply the patch below to fix
>   this.
>
>   Is this OK ?

Looks like this problem was introduced by

2019-11-04  Kamlesh Kumar  <kamleshbhalui@gmail.com>

        * cp-demangle.c (d_expr_primary): Handle
        nullptr demangling.
        * testsuite/demangle-expected: Added test.

https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-11/msg00064.html

Kamlesh, Jason, can you confirm that Nick's change to the testsuite is
testing the expected demangling, and that the current entry in the
testsuite is incorrect?  Thanks.

Ian


> libiberty/ChangeLog
> 2020-01-20  Nick Clifton  <nickc@redhat.com>
>
> 	* testsuite/demangle-expected: Fix expected demangling.
>
> Index: libiberty/testsuite/demangle-expected
> ===================================================================
> --- libiberty/testsuite/demangle-expected	(revision 280157)
> +++ libiberty/testsuite/demangle-expected	(working copy)
> @@ -1449,4 +1449,4 @@
>  #PR91979 demangling nullptr expression
>  
>  _Z3fooILPv0EEvPN9enable_ifIXeqT_LDnEEvE4typeE
> -void foo<(void*)0>(enable_if<((void*)0)==((decltype(nullptr))), void>::type*)
> +void foo<(void*)0>(enable_if<((void*)0)==(decltype(nullptr)), void>::type*)
kamlesh kumar Jan. 20, 2020, 4:58 p.m. UTC | #2
yes, current expected entry is wrong and
Nick's patch corrects that.

./kamlesh


On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 9:29 PM Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com> wrote:

> Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > Hi Ian,
> >
> >   The libiberty testsuite in the gcc mainline is currently failing on
> >   the last test:
> >
> >     FAIL at line 1452, options :
> >     in:  _Z3fooILPv0EEvPN9enable_ifIXeqT_LDnEEvE4typeE
> >     out: void foo<(void*)0>(enable_if<((void*)0)==(decltype(nullptr)),
> void>::type*)
> >     exp: void foo<(void*)0>(enable_if<((void*)0)==((decltype(nullptr))),
> void>::type*)
> >
> >   To me it looks like the expected demangling is incorrect - it wants a
> >   double set of parentheses around decltype(nullptr) when I think that
> >   only one is needed.  So I would like to apply the patch below to fix
> >   this.
> >
> >   Is this OK ?
>
> Looks like this problem was introduced by
>
> 2019-11-04  Kamlesh Kumar  <kamleshbhalui@gmail.com>
>
>         * cp-demangle.c (d_expr_primary): Handle
>         nullptr demangling.
>         * testsuite/demangle-expected: Added test.
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-11/msg00064.html
>
> Kamlesh, Jason, can you confirm that Nick's change to the testsuite is
> testing the expected demangling, and that the current entry in the
> testsuite is incorrect?  Thanks.
>
> Ian
>
>
> > libiberty/ChangeLog
> > 2020-01-20  Nick Clifton  <nickc@redhat.com>
> >
> >       * testsuite/demangle-expected: Fix expected demangling.
> >
> > Index: libiberty/testsuite/demangle-expected
> > ===================================================================
> > --- libiberty/testsuite/demangle-expected     (revision 280157)
> > +++ libiberty/testsuite/demangle-expected     (working copy)
> > @@ -1449,4 +1449,4 @@
> >  #PR91979 demangling nullptr expression
> >
> >  _Z3fooILPv0EEvPN9enable_ifIXeqT_LDnEEvE4typeE
> > -void foo<(void*)0>(enable_if<((void*)0)==((decltype(nullptr))),
> void>::type*)
> > +void foo<(void*)0>(enable_if<((void*)0)==(decltype(nullptr)),
> void>::type*)
>
Ian Lance Taylor Jan. 20, 2020, 5:52 p.m. UTC | #3
kamlesh kumar <kamleshbhalui@gmail.com> writes:

> yes, current expected entry is wrong and
> Nick's patch corrects that.

Thanks.  Nick, the patch is OK.

Ian

> On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 9:29 PM Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com> wrote:
>
>> Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>> > Hi Ian,
>> >
>> >   The libiberty testsuite in the gcc mainline is currently failing on
>> >   the last test:
>> >
>> >     FAIL at line 1452, options :
>> >     in:  _Z3fooILPv0EEvPN9enable_ifIXeqT_LDnEEvE4typeE
>> >     out: void foo<(void*)0>(enable_if<((void*)0)==(decltype(nullptr)),
>> void>::type*)
>> >     exp: void foo<(void*)0>(enable_if<((void*)0)==((decltype(nullptr))),
>> void>::type*)
>> >
>> >   To me it looks like the expected demangling is incorrect - it wants a
>> >   double set of parentheses around decltype(nullptr) when I think that
>> >   only one is needed.  So I would like to apply the patch below to fix
>> >   this.
>> >
>> >   Is this OK ?
>>
>> Looks like this problem was introduced by
>>
>> 2019-11-04  Kamlesh Kumar  <kamleshbhalui@gmail.com>
>>
>>         * cp-demangle.c (d_expr_primary): Handle
>>         nullptr demangling.
>>         * testsuite/demangle-expected: Added test.
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-11/msg00064.html
>>
>> Kamlesh, Jason, can you confirm that Nick's change to the testsuite is
>> testing the expected demangling, and that the current entry in the
>> testsuite is incorrect?  Thanks.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>> > libiberty/ChangeLog
>> > 2020-01-20  Nick Clifton  <nickc@redhat.com>
>> >
>> >       * testsuite/demangle-expected: Fix expected demangling.
>> >
>> > Index: libiberty/testsuite/demangle-expected
>> > ===================================================================
>> > --- libiberty/testsuite/demangle-expected     (revision 280157)
>> > +++ libiberty/testsuite/demangle-expected     (working copy)
>> > @@ -1449,4 +1449,4 @@
>> >  #PR91979 demangling nullptr expression
>> >
>> >  _Z3fooILPv0EEvPN9enable_ifIXeqT_LDnEEvE4typeE
>> > -void foo<(void*)0>(enable_if<((void*)0)==((decltype(nullptr))),
>> void>::type*)
>> > +void foo<(void*)0>(enable_if<((void*)0)==(decltype(nullptr)),
>> void>::type*)
>>

Patch
diff mbox series

Index: libiberty/testsuite/demangle-expected
===================================================================
--- libiberty/testsuite/demangle-expected	(revision 280157)
+++ libiberty/testsuite/demangle-expected	(working copy)
@@ -1449,4 +1449,4 @@ 
 #PR91979 demangling nullptr expression
 
 _Z3fooILPv0EEvPN9enable_ifIXeqT_LDnEEvE4typeE
-void foo<(void*)0>(enable_if<((void*)0)==((decltype(nullptr))), void>::type*)
+void foo<(void*)0>(enable_if<((void*)0)==(decltype(nullptr)), void>::type*)