| Message ID | yddppl2pnv7.fsf@lokon.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 31/03/14 14:13 +0200, Rainer Orth wrote: > >Unfortunately, the new tests FAIL on non-C99 targets (i386-pc-solaris2.9 >in my case): > >FAIL: 18_support/exception_ptr/60612-terminate.cc (test for excess errors) >Excess errors: >/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/18_support/exception_ptr/6061 >2-terminate.cc:26:27: error: '_Exit' was not declared in this scope > >WARNING: 18_support/exception_ptr/60612-terminate.cc compilation failed to produ >ce executable Sorry about that. Does Solaris 9 not support C99 at all, or does it only define _Exit when __STDC_VERSION__ has the right value? >The following patch fixes this, following the idiom often used in the >libstdc++ testsuite. > >Tested with the appropriate runtest invocation on >i386-pc-solaris2.{9,11}. Ok for mainline? The patch is OK, thanks. >When looking into this, I noticed that this idiom is very widespread in >the v3 testsuite, but IMNSHO a *very bad* idea since it hides the fact >that many tests are acutually UNSUPPORTED, but appear to PASS, while the >only thing that passes is an empty main. I had something similar >recently when all C99 functionality in libstdc++ got disabled, but >testsuite results barely changed. I completely agree it's a bad idea. >Unless someone strongly objects, I expect to change those tests to use >corresponding dg-require-* keywords to make mark them appropriately once >4.9 branches. I certainly don't object, but you should be aware that once we're in stage 1 I want to review all our uses of _GLIBCXX_USE_C99 and replace it with more fine-grained checks. We should at least have separate macros for: * "we can use the C99 library in C++11 mode" (true for a modern libc that checks for __cplusplus >= 201103L) * "we can use the C99 library in C++98 mode" (true for glibc, because we define _GNU_SOURCE)
Hi Jonathan, > On 31/03/14 14:13 +0200, Rainer Orth wrote: >> >>Unfortunately, the new tests FAIL on non-C99 targets (i386-pc-solaris2.9 >>in my case): >> >>FAIL: 18_support/exception_ptr/60612-terminate.cc (test for excess errors) >>Excess errors: >>/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/18_support/exception_ptr/6061 >>2-terminate.cc:26:27: error: '_Exit' was not declared in this scope >> >>WARNING: 18_support/exception_ptr/60612-terminate.cc compilation failed to >> produ >>ce executable > > Sorry about that. > Does Solaris 9 not support C99 at all, or does it only define _Exit > when __STDC_VERSION__ has the right value? no C99 support at all. That only appeared in Solaris 10. >>When looking into this, I noticed that this idiom is very widespread in >>the v3 testsuite, but IMNSHO a *very bad* idea since it hides the fact >>that many tests are acutually UNSUPPORTED, but appear to PASS, while the >>only thing that passes is an empty main. I had something similar >>recently when all C99 functionality in libstdc++ got disabled, but >>testsuite results barely changed. > > I completely agree it's a bad idea. > >>Unless someone strongly objects, I expect to change those tests to use >>corresponding dg-require-* keywords to make mark them appropriately once >>4.9 branches. > > I certainly don't object, but you should be aware that once we're in > stage 1 I want to review all our uses of _GLIBCXX_USE_C99 and replace > it with more fine-grained checks. We should at least have separate > macros for: > > * "we can use the C99 library in C++11 mode" > (true for a modern libc that checks for __cplusplus >= 201103L) > > * "we can use the C99 library in C++98 mode" > (true for glibc, because we define _GNU_SOURCE) Good to know, thanks for the heads-up. Rainer
# HG changeset patch # Parent 23f930c5334d34dff20abb2647f50b4a095481e4 Fix 18_support/exception_ptr/60612-*.cc on non-C99 targets diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/18_support/exception_ptr/60612-terminate.cc b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/18_support/exception_ptr/60612-terminate.cc --- a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/18_support/exception_ptr/60612-terminate.cc +++ b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/18_support/exception_ptr/60612-terminate.cc @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ #include <exception> #include <stdlib.h> +#ifdef _GLIBCXX_USE_C99 void terminate() { _Exit(0); } void f() noexcept @@ -34,8 +35,12 @@ void f() noexcept std::rethrow_exception(std::current_exception()); } } +#endif int main() { +#ifdef _GLIBCXX_USE_C99 f(); +#endif + return 0; } diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/18_support/exception_ptr/60612-unexpected.cc b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/18_support/exception_ptr/60612-unexpected.cc --- a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/18_support/exception_ptr/60612-unexpected.cc +++ b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/18_support/exception_ptr/60612-unexpected.cc @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ #include <exception> #include <stdlib.h> +#ifdef _GLIBCXX_USE_C99 void unexpected() { _Exit(0); } void f() throw() @@ -34,8 +35,11 @@ void f() throw() std::rethrow_exception(std::current_exception()); } } +#endif int main() { +#ifdef _GLIBCXX_USE_C99 f(); +#endif }