[New file] Add testcase to ensure that #pragma GCC diagnostic push/pop works with -Wtraditional.

[New file] Add testcase to ensure that #pragma GCC diagnostic push/pop works with -Wtraditional.

[Eric Gallager]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 540 bytes --]

The attached test case failed with gcc 4.9 and older, but started
compiling successfully with only the 1 expected warning with gcc 5.
Adding it to the test suite would ensure that this behavior doesn't
regress. Note that I have only tested it by compiling it manually, and
not by actually running it as part of the entire test suite, so please
let me know if I got any of the dejagnu directives wrong.

Thanks,
Eric Gallager

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

2017-03-24  Eric Gallager  <egall@gwmail.gwu.edu>

	* gcc.dg/pragma-diag-7.c: New test.

[-- Attachment #2: pragma-diag-7.c --]
[-- Type: text/x-csrc, Size: 329 bytes --]

/* { dg-do compile } */

unsigned long ok = 0UL;
#pragma GCC diagnostic push
#pragma GCC diagnostic warning "-Wtraditional"
unsigned long bad = 1UL; /* { dg-warning "suffix" } */
/* Note the extra space before the pragma on this next line: */
 #pragma GCC diagnostic pop
unsigned long ok_again = 2UL; /* { dg-bogus "suffix" } */

Re: [New file] Add testcase to ensure that #pragma GCC diagnostic push/pop works with -Wtraditional.

[David Malcolm]

On Fri, 2017-03-24 at 14:10 -0400, Eric Gallager wrote:
> The attached test case failed with gcc 4.9 and older, but started
> compiling successfully with only the 1 expected warning with gcc 5.
> Adding it to the test suite would ensure that this behavior doesn't
> regress. 

Thanks for posting this.

What's the significance of the leading space in the:
 #pragma GCC diagnostic pop
line?  Is *that* the bug?  (did we have a bug # for this, I wonder?)


> Note that I have only tested it by compiling it manually, and
> not by actually running it as part of the entire test suite, so
> please
> let me know if I got any of the dejagnu directives wrong.

When I started contributing to gcc, it took me a while to figure out
how to run just one case in the testsuite, so in case it's helpful I'll
post the recipe here:

1) Find the pertinent Tcl script that runs the test: a .exp script in
the same directory, or one of the ancestors directories.  For this case
it's gcc.dg/dg.exp.  The significant part is the filename: dg.exp

2) Figure out the appropriate "make" target, normally based on the
source language for the test.  For this case it's "check-gcc"

3) Run make in your BUILDDIR/gcc, passing in a suitable value for
RUNTESTFLAGS based on the filename found in step 1 above.
For this case, giving it a couple of "-v" flags for verbosity (so that
we can see the command-line of the compiler invocation) it would be:

$ make -jN && make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="-v -v dg.exp=pragma-diag
-7.c"

(for some N; I like the "make && make check-FOO" construction to ensure
that the compiler is rebuilt before running the tests).

...which leads to a summary of:

# of expected passes		3

which looks good.

You can also use wildcards e.g.:

make -j64 && make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="-v -v dg.exp=pragma-diag-*.c"

(and can use -jN on the "make check-FOO" invocation if there are a lot of tests; I tend not to use it for a small number of tests, to avoid interleaving of output in the logs).

Thanks,
> Eric Gallager
> 
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> 
> 2017-03-24  Eric Gallager  <egall@gwmail.gwu.edu>
> 
> 	* gcc.dg/pragma-diag-7.c: New test.

I tested your new test case via the above approach and it looks good to
me.

Although we're meant to only be accepting regression fixes and
documentation fixes right now (stage 4 of gcc 7 development) I feel
that extra test coverage like this also ought to be acceptable.

I don't know if the test case is sufficiently small to be exempt from
the FSF's paperwork requirements here:
  https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html
(do you have that paperwork in place?)

Thanks
Dave

> 

Re: [New file] Add testcase to ensure that #pragma GCC diagnostic push/pop works with -Wtraditional.

[Eric Gallager]

On 3/24/17, David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-03-24 at 14:10 -0400, Eric Gallager wrote:
>> The attached test case failed with gcc 4.9 and older, but started
>> compiling successfully with only the 1 expected warning with gcc 5.
>> Adding it to the test suite would ensure that this behavior doesn't
>> regress.
>
> Thanks for posting this.
>
> What's the significance of the leading space in the:
>  #pragma GCC diagnostic pop
> line?  Is *that* the bug?  (did we have a bug # for this, I wonder?)
>

It prints a warning without it, which would be entirely correct of it to do:

/Users/ericgallager/gcc-git/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pragma-diag-7.c:8:2:
warning: suggest hiding #pragma from traditional C with an indented #
[-Wtraditional]
 #pragma GCC diagnostic pop
  ^

I only wanted the test case to be testing for the warnings about
suffixes; another warning about the pragma would just be noise, albeit
correct noise.

>
>> Note that I have only tested it by compiling it manually, and
>> not by actually running it as part of the entire test suite, so
>> please
>> let me know if I got any of the dejagnu directives wrong.
>
> When I started contributing to gcc, it took me a while to figure out
> how to run just one case in the testsuite, so in case it's helpful I'll
> post the recipe here:
>
> 1) Find the pertinent Tcl script that runs the test: a .exp script in
> the same directory, or one of the ancestors directories.  For this case
> it's gcc.dg/dg.exp.  The significant part is the filename: dg.exp
>
> 2) Figure out the appropriate "make" target, normally based on the
> source language for the test.  For this case it's "check-gcc"
>
> 3) Run make in your BUILDDIR/gcc, passing in a suitable value for
> RUNTESTFLAGS based on the filename found in step 1 above.
> For this case, giving it a couple of "-v" flags for verbosity (so that
> we can see the command-line of the compiler invocation) it would be:
>
> $ make -jN && make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="-v -v dg.exp=pragma-diag
> -7.c"
>
> (for some N; I like the "make && make check-FOO" construction to ensure
> that the compiler is rebuilt before running the tests).
>
> ...which leads to a summary of:
>
> # of expected passes		3
>
> which looks good.

Okay, I tried this, and I also got:

# of expected passes		3

too, so that's good.

>
> You can also use wildcards e.g.:
>
> make -j64 && make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="-v -v dg.exp=pragma-diag-*.c"
>
> (and can use -jN on the "make check-FOO" invocation if there are a lot of
> tests; I tend not to use it for a small number of tests, to avoid
> interleaving of output in the logs).
>
> Thanks,
>> Eric Gallager
>>
>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>
>> 2017-03-24  Eric Gallager  <egall@gwmail.gwu.edu>
>>
>> 	* gcc.dg/pragma-diag-7.c: New test.
>
> I tested your new test case via the above approach and it looks good to
> me.
>
> Although we're meant to only be accepting regression fixes and
> documentation fixes right now (stage 4 of gcc 7 development) I feel
> that extra test coverage like this also ought to be acceptable.

It's okay to save it for next stage 1, I'm already submitting it later
than I intended to, so extra waiting won't hurt.

>
> I don't know if the test case is sufficiently small to be exempt from
> the FSF's paperwork requirements here:
>   https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html
> (do you have that paperwork in place?)
>
> Thanks
> Dave

Yes, I dropped off my copyright assignment at the FSF in December, but
I don't have commit access yet though.
Thanks,
Eric

Re: [New file] Add testcase to ensure that #pragma GCC diagnostic push/pop works with -Wtraditional.

[Martin Sebor]

On 03/24/2017 01:41 PM, Eric Gallager wrote:
> On 3/24/17, David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2017-03-24 at 14:10 -0400, Eric Gallager wrote:
>>> The attached test case failed with gcc 4.9 and older, but started
>>> compiling successfully with only the 1 expected warning with gcc 5.
>>> Adding it to the test suite would ensure that this behavior doesn't
>>> regress.
>>
>> Thanks for posting this.
>>
>> What's the significance of the leading space in the:
>>  #pragma GCC diagnostic pop
>> line?  Is *that* the bug?  (did we have a bug # for this, I wonder?)
>>
>
> It prints a warning without it, which would be entirely correct of it to do:
>
> /Users/ericgallager/gcc-git/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pragma-diag-7.c:8:2:
> warning: suggest hiding #pragma from traditional C with an indented #
> [-Wtraditional]
>  #pragma GCC diagnostic pop
>   ^
>
> I only wanted the test case to be testing for the warnings about
> suffixes; another warning about the pragma would just be noise, albeit
> correct noise.
>
>>
>>> Note that I have only tested it by compiling it manually, and
>>> not by actually running it as part of the entire test suite, so
>>> please
>>> let me know if I got any of the dejagnu directives wrong.
>>
>> When I started contributing to gcc, it took me a while to figure out
>> how to run just one case in the testsuite, so in case it's helpful I'll
>> post the recipe here:
>>
>> 1) Find the pertinent Tcl script that runs the test: a .exp script in
>> the same directory, or one of the ancestors directories.  For this case
>> it's gcc.dg/dg.exp.  The significant part is the filename: dg.exp
>>
>> 2) Figure out the appropriate "make" target, normally based on the
>> source language for the test.  For this case it's "check-gcc"
>>
>> 3) Run make in your BUILDDIR/gcc, passing in a suitable value for
>> RUNTESTFLAGS based on the filename found in step 1 above.
>> For this case, giving it a couple of "-v" flags for verbosity (so that
>> we can see the command-line of the compiler invocation) it would be:
>>
>> $ make -jN && make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="-v -v dg.exp=pragma-diag
>> -7.c"
>>
>> (for some N; I like the "make && make check-FOO" construction to ensure
>> that the compiler is rebuilt before running the tests).
>>
>> ...which leads to a summary of:
>>
>> # of expected passes		3
>>
>> which looks good.

Besides David's helpful tutorial, if you haven't seen them yet,
there are a couple of guides on the GCC Wiki that are worth
reviewing as well:

   https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Testing_GCC
   https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/HowToPrepareATestcase

Martin

[New file, Ping] Add testcase to ensure that #pragma GCC diagnostic push/pop works with -Wtraditional.

[Eric Gallager]

On 3/24/17, Eric Gallager <egall@gwmail.gwu.edu> wrote:
> On 3/24/17, David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2017-03-24 at 14:10 -0400, Eric Gallager wrote:
>>> The attached test case failed with gcc 4.9 and older, but started
>>> compiling successfully with only the 1 expected warning with gcc 5.
>>> Adding it to the test suite would ensure that this behavior doesn't
>>> regress.
>>
>> Thanks for posting this.
>>
>> What's the significance of the leading space in the:
>>  #pragma GCC diagnostic pop
>> line?  Is *that* the bug?  (did we have a bug # for this, I wonder?)
>>
>
> It prints a warning without it, which would be entirely correct of it to
> do:
>
> /Users/ericgallager/gcc-git/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pragma-diag-7.c:8:2:
> warning: suggest hiding #pragma from traditional C with an indented #
> [-Wtraditional]
>  #pragma GCC diagnostic pop
>   ^
>
> I only wanted the test case to be testing for the warnings about
> suffixes; another warning about the pragma would just be noise, albeit
> correct noise.
>
>>
>>> Note that I have only tested it by compiling it manually, and
>>> not by actually running it as part of the entire test suite, so
>>> please
>>> let me know if I got any of the dejagnu directives wrong.
>>
>> When I started contributing to gcc, it took me a while to figure out
>> how to run just one case in the testsuite, so in case it's helpful I'll
>> post the recipe here:
>>
>> 1) Find the pertinent Tcl script that runs the test: a .exp script in
>> the same directory, or one of the ancestors directories.  For this case
>> it's gcc.dg/dg.exp.  The significant part is the filename: dg.exp
>>
>> 2) Figure out the appropriate "make" target, normally based on the
>> source language for the test.  For this case it's "check-gcc"
>>
>> 3) Run make in your BUILDDIR/gcc, passing in a suitable value for
>> RUNTESTFLAGS based on the filename found in step 1 above.
>> For this case, giving it a couple of "-v" flags for verbosity (so that
>> we can see the command-line of the compiler invocation) it would be:
>>
>> $ make -jN && make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="-v -v dg.exp=pragma-diag
>> -7.c"
>>
>> (for some N; I like the "make && make check-FOO" construction to ensure
>> that the compiler is rebuilt before running the tests).
>>
>> ...which leads to a summary of:
>>
>> # of expected passes		3
>>
>> which looks good.
>
> Okay, I tried this, and I also got:
>
> # of expected passes		3
>
> too, so that's good.
>
>>
>> You can also use wildcards e.g.:
>>
>> make -j64 && make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="-v -v dg.exp=pragma-diag-*.c"
>>
>> (and can use -jN on the "make check-FOO" invocation if there are a lot of
>> tests; I tend not to use it for a small number of tests, to avoid
>> interleaving of output in the logs).
>>
>> Thanks,
>>> Eric Gallager
>>>
>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>>
>>> 2017-03-24  Eric Gallager  <egall@gwmail.gwu.edu>
>>>
>>> 	* gcc.dg/pragma-diag-7.c: New test.
>>
>> I tested your new test case via the above approach and it looks good to
>> me.
>>
>> Although we're meant to only be accepting regression fixes and
>> documentation fixes right now (stage 4 of gcc 7 development) I feel
>> that extra test coverage like this also ought to be acceptable.
>
> It's okay to save it for next stage 1, I'm already submitting it later
> than I intended to, so extra waiting won't hurt.
>

Okay, GCC 7 has been released and GCC 8 stage 1 is open now, so I'm
pinging this:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-03/msg01319.html

>>
>> I don't know if the test case is sufficiently small to be exempt from
>> the FSF's paperwork requirements here:
>>   https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html
>> (do you have that paperwork in place?)
>>
>> Thanks
>> Dave
>
> Yes, I dropped off my copyright assignment at the FSF in December, but
> I don't have commit access yet though.
> Thanks,
> Eric
>

David, can I list you as my sponsor when applying for
write-after-approval SVN access? Or would someone else be better?
Thanks,
Eric

[PING] Re: [New file] Add testcase to ensure that #pragma GCC diagnostic push/pop works with -Wtraditional.

[Eric Gallager]

Pinging this again: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-05/msg00131.html

On 3/25/17, Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/24/2017 01:41 PM, Eric Gallager wrote:
>> On 3/24/17, David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2017-03-24 at 14:10 -0400, Eric Gallager wrote:
>>>> The attached test case failed with gcc 4.9 and older, but started
>>>> compiling successfully with only the 1 expected warning with gcc 5.
>>>> Adding it to the test suite would ensure that this behavior doesn't
>>>> regress.
>>>
>>> Thanks for posting this.
>>>
>>> What's the significance of the leading space in the:
>>>  #pragma GCC diagnostic pop
>>> line?  Is *that* the bug?  (did we have a bug # for this, I wonder?)
>>>
>>
>> It prints a warning without it, which would be entirely correct of it to
>> do:
>>
>> /Users/ericgallager/gcc-git/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pragma-diag-7.c:8:2:
>> warning: suggest hiding #pragma from traditional C with an indented #
>> [-Wtraditional]
>>  #pragma GCC diagnostic pop
>>   ^
>>
>> I only wanted the test case to be testing for the warnings about
>> suffixes; another warning about the pragma would just be noise, albeit
>> correct noise.
>>
>>>
>>>> Note that I have only tested it by compiling it manually, and
>>>> not by actually running it as part of the entire test suite, so
>>>> please
>>>> let me know if I got any of the dejagnu directives wrong.
>>>
>>> When I started contributing to gcc, it took me a while to figure out
>>> how to run just one case in the testsuite, so in case it's helpful I'll
>>> post the recipe here:
>>>
>>> 1) Find the pertinent Tcl script that runs the test: a .exp script in
>>> the same directory, or one of the ancestors directories.  For this case
>>> it's gcc.dg/dg.exp.  The significant part is the filename: dg.exp
>>>
>>> 2) Figure out the appropriate "make" target, normally based on the
>>> source language for the test.  For this case it's "check-gcc"
>>>
>>> 3) Run make in your BUILDDIR/gcc, passing in a suitable value for
>>> RUNTESTFLAGS based on the filename found in step 1 above.
>>> For this case, giving it a couple of "-v" flags for verbosity (so that
>>> we can see the command-line of the compiler invocation) it would be:
>>>
>>> $ make -jN && make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="-v -v dg.exp=pragma-diag
>>> -7.c"
>>>
>>> (for some N; I like the "make && make check-FOO" construction to ensure
>>> that the compiler is rebuilt before running the tests).
>>>
>>> ...which leads to a summary of:
>>>
>>> # of expected passes		3
>>>
>>> which looks good.
>
> Besides David's helpful tutorial, if you haven't seen them yet,
> there are a couple of guides on the GCC Wiki that are worth
> reviewing as well:
>
>    https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Testing_GCC
>    https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/HowToPrepareATestcase
>
> Martin
>

Re: [New file, Ping] Add testcase to ensure that #pragma GCC diagnostic push/pop works with -Wtraditional.

[David Malcolm]

On Tue, 2017-05-02 at 12:56 -0400, Eric Gallager wrote:
> On 3/24/17, Eric Gallager <egall@gwmail.gwu.edu> wrote:
> > On 3/24/17, David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2017-03-24 at 14:10 -0400, Eric Gallager wrote:
> > > > The attached test case failed with gcc 4.9 and older, but
> > > > started
> > > > compiling successfully with only the 1 expected warning with
> > > > gcc 5.
> > > > Adding it to the test suite would ensure that this behavior
> > > > doesn't
> > > > regress.
> > > 
> > > Thanks for posting this.
> > > 
> > > What's the significance of the leading space in the:
> > >  #pragma GCC diagnostic pop
> > > line?  Is *that* the bug?  (did we have a bug # for this, I
> > > wonder?)
> > > 
> > 
> > It prints a warning without it, which would be entirely correct of
> > it to
> > do:
> > 
> > /Users/ericgallager/gcc-git/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pragma-diag
> > -7.c:8:2:
> > warning: suggest hiding #pragma from traditional C with an indented
> > #
> > [-Wtraditional]
> >  #pragma GCC diagnostic pop
> >   ^
> > 
> > I only wanted the test case to be testing for the warnings about
> > suffixes; another warning about the pragma would just be noise,
> > albeit
> > correct noise.
> > 
> > > 
> > > > Note that I have only tested it by compiling it manually, and
> > > > not by actually running it as part of the entire test suite, so
> > > > please
> > > > let me know if I got any of the dejagnu directives wrong.
> > > 
> > > When I started contributing to gcc, it took me a while to figure
> > > out
> > > how to run just one case in the testsuite, so in case it's
> > > helpful I'll
> > > post the recipe here:
> > > 
> > > 1) Find the pertinent Tcl script that runs the test: a .exp
> > > script in
> > > the same directory, or one of the ancestors directories.  For
> > > this case
> > > it's gcc.dg/dg.exp.  The significant part is the filename: dg.exp
> > > 
> > > 2) Figure out the appropriate "make" target, normally based on
> > > the
> > > source language for the test.  For this case it's "check-gcc"
> > > 
> > > 3) Run make in your BUILDDIR/gcc, passing in a suitable value for
> > > RUNTESTFLAGS based on the filename found in step 1 above.
> > > For this case, giving it a couple of "-v" flags for verbosity (so
> > > that
> > > we can see the command-line of the compiler invocation) it would
> > > be:
> > > 
> > > $ make -jN && make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="-v -v dg.exp=pragma
> > > -diag
> > > -7.c"
> > > 
> > > (for some N; I like the "make && make check-FOO" construction to
> > > ensure
> > > that the compiler is rebuilt before running the tests).
> > > 
> > > ...which leads to a summary of:
> > > 
> > > # of expected passes		3
> > > 
> > > which looks good.
> > 
> > Okay, I tried this, and I also got:
> > 
> > # of expected passes		3
> > 
> > too, so that's good.
> > 
> > > 
> > > You can also use wildcards e.g.:
> > > 
> > > make -j64 && make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="-v -v dg.exp=pragma
> > > -diag-*.c"
> > > 
> > > (and can use -jN on the "make check-FOO" invocation if there are
> > > a lot of
> > > tests; I tend not to use it for a small number of tests, to avoid
> > > interleaving of output in the logs).
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > > Eric Gallager
> > > > 
> > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> > > > 
> > > > 2017-03-24  Eric Gallager  <egall@gwmail.gwu.edu>
> > > > 
> > > > 	* gcc.dg/pragma-diag-7.c: New test.
> > > 
> > > I tested your new test case via the above approach and it looks
> > > good to
> > > me.
> > > 
> > > Although we're meant to only be accepting regression fixes and
> > > documentation fixes right now (stage 4 of gcc 7 development) I
> > > feel
> > > that extra test coverage like this also ought to be acceptable.
> > 
> > It's okay to save it for next stage 1, I'm already submitting it
> > later
> > than I intended to, so extra waiting won't hurt.
> > 
> 
> Okay, GCC 7 has been released and GCC 8 stage 1 is open now, so I'm
> pinging this:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-03/msg01319.html
> 
> > > 
> > > I don't know if the test case is sufficiently small to be exempt
> > > from
> > > the FSF's paperwork requirements here:
> > >   https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html
> > > (do you have that paperwork in place?)
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > > Dave
> > 
> > Yes, I dropped off my copyright assignment at the FSF in December,
> > but
> > I don't have commit access yet though.
> > Thanks,
> > Eric
> > 
> 
> David, can I list you as my sponsor when applying for
> write-after-approval SVN access? Or would someone else be better?

Yes.

I've gone ahead and committed this testcase to trunk as r248253.