From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 106528 invoked by alias); 7 Jan 2016 12:11:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 106506 invoked by uid 89); 7 Jan 2016 12:11:03 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:539 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 12:11:01 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E1F27AE88; Thu, 7 Jan 2016 12:11:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn1-5-247.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.5.247]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u07CAxOn027609; Thu, 7 Jan 2016 07:10:59 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] testsuite/lib/multline.exp: show test name and line numbers To: Uros Bizjak , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" References: Cc: David Malcolm From: Bernd Schmidt Message-ID: <568E55D2.5040401@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 12:11:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-01/txt/msg00304.txt.bz2 On 12/29/2015 10:17 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > It looks that this new functionality doesn't handle conditional > compilation, when > > /* { dg-do compile { target { ! ia32 } } } */ > > is added to the testcase, such as in recently changed > gcc.target/i386/pr68473-1.c. > > The directive is passed to the next testcase, leading to spurious > testsuite failures [1] in unrelated testcases. Please open a PR if you haven't already. David, could you investigate? Bernd