From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8698 invoked by alias); 13 Feb 2015 20:53:48 -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 8688 invoked by uid 89); 13 Feb 2015 20:53:47 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 20:53:46 +0000 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1YMNF7-0001Hg-8U from joseph_myers@mentor.com ; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 12:53:41 -0800 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk (137.202.0.76) by SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com (137.202.0.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.224.2; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 20:53:39 +0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1YMNF4-0006T4-LN; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 20:53:38 +0000 Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 20:53:00 -0000 From: Joseph Myers To: Marek Polacek CC: GCC Patches Subject: Re: [C PATCH] Handle typedef name as a flexible array member (PR c/64768) In-Reply-To: <20150213184540.GC23138@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <20150213184540.GC23138@redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-SW-Source: 2015-02/txt/msg00880.txt.bz2 On Fri, 13 Feb 2015, Marek Polacek wrote: > Since we had no testing for such cases whatsoever, I took existing flexible > array member tests and duplicated them, only adjusted them to use a typedef > name, so that we test as many scenarios as possible - I think this ought to > give us a reasonable level of confidence that this works as expected now. > > Bootstrapped/regtested on {ppc64,x86_64}-linux, ok for trunk? OK, though the use of /* { dg-bogus "warning" "warning in place of error" } */ is a relic of when dg-error / dg-warning used not to verify that diagnostics were in fact errors / warnings; now they do check that, simply using dg-error (on the line with the diagnostic, so not needing { target *-*-* } and a line number) suffices rather than needing such a dg-bogus / dg-error pair. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com