From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
To: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@axis.com>
Cc: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>,
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [committed] libstdc++: Fix aligned formatting of stacktrace_entry and thread::id [PR112564]
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 11:55:22 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAH6eHdSO-ZYBmheAwxE2jwwVg748pNE2MtAiFbajL2jqkCc+GQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231120021257.630B72041D@pchp3.se.axis.com>
On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 at 02:13, Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@axis.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>
> > Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 17:20:09 +0000
>
> > PR libstdc++/112564
> > * include/std/stacktrace (formatter::format): Format according
> > to format-spec.
> > * include/std/thread (formatter::format): Use _Align_right as
> > default.
> > * testsuite/19_diagnostics/stacktrace/output.cc: Check
> > fill-and-align handling. Change compile test to run.
> > * testsuite/30_threads/thread/id/output.cc: Check fill-and-align
> > handling.
>
> You already know this, so JFTR: this introduced a regression
> for some targets, logged as PR112630.
>
> Was this change deliberate:
>
> > --- a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/19_diagnostics/stacktrace/output.cc
> > +++ b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/19_diagnostics/stacktrace/output.cc
> > @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
> > -// { dg-do compile { target c++23 } }
> > +// { dg-options "-lstdc++exp" }
> > +// { dg-do run { target c++23 } }
> > // { dg-require-effective-target stacktrace }
> > // { dg-add-options no_pch }
>
> i.e. changing from dg-compile to dg-run?
Yes, it was always supposed to be a run test, the old dg-do was a typo
that I only noticed when fixing the formatting bug (PR 112564).
> I'm guessing so. Though the changelog entry and post isn't
> explicit, the use of VERIFY is rather clear and most tests
> in 19_diagnostics/stacktrace are dg-run.
The changelog entry does say "Change compile test to run."
>
> If so, can the "dg-run-ness" of the test please move to a
> separate test and let 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/output.cc be
> just dg-compile? This particular test may not warrant the
> consideration, but more so a pattern to follow for other
> tests.
I don't see any point in doing that here, being able to compile code
doing I/O on stacktraces but not run it isn't useful. It needs to be a
run test.
We do it elsewhere if it's meaningful, e.g. several
testsuite/std/format/* tests, and the ones I just added in
r14-5562-g568eb2d25c8f79 are all 'compile' only.
>
> brgds, H-P
> PS. Sorry, I have no idea why regarding the underlying multi-target problem
I have some vague speculation in PR 112541.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-11-20 11:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-11-16 17:20 Jonathan Wakely
2023-11-20 2:12 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2023-11-20 11:55 ` Jonathan Wakely [this message]
2023-11-20 16:18 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2023-11-20 16:50 ` Jonathan Wakely
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAH6eHdSO-ZYBmheAwxE2jwwVg748pNE2MtAiFbajL2jqkCc+GQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jwakely.gcc@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=hp@axis.com \
--cc=jwakely@redhat.com \
--cc=libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).