* Testing a patch
@ 2023-05-29 13:09 Benjamin Priour
2023-05-30 23:07 ` David Malcolm
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Benjamin Priour @ 2023-05-29 13:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc; +Cc: David Malcolm
Hi,
Regstrapping finally done for PR109439 - Spurious
-Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value tagging along
-Wanalyzer-out-of-bounds.
Now only a OOB warning is reported when necessary instead of OOB + Use
of uninitialized value.
Some tests in analyzer (out-of-bounds-*, realloc-5, pr101962) were
checking for the now removed use-of-uninitialized-value warning, and
therefore I fixed that.
But now I'm confused since the documentation reads that to perform
regtesting, one should use make -k check,
and that's what I always use too, but because I fixed the above test
files, contrib/compare_tests obviously complains about them having
disappeared.
Does it mean regtesting failed ? Can I submit the patch in its current
state or should I do something else before doing so ?
Guess I would get feedback anyway if something's wrong.
I figured I would send it here rather than to gcc-patches, as it's
more general than a discussion over a single patch.
Thanks,
Benjamin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: Testing a patch
2023-05-29 13:09 Testing a patch Benjamin Priour
@ 2023-05-30 23:07 ` David Malcolm
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: David Malcolm @ 2023-05-30 23:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Benjamin Priour, gcc
On Mon, 2023-05-29 at 15:09 +0200, Benjamin Priour wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Regstrapping finally done for PR109439 - Spurious
> -Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value tagging along
> -Wanalyzer-out-of-bounds.
> Now only a OOB warning is reported when necessary instead of OOB +
> Use
> of uninitialized value.
>
> Some tests in analyzer (out-of-bounds-*, realloc-5, pr101962) were
> checking for the now removed use-of-uninitialized-value warning, and
> therefore I fixed that.
>
> But now I'm confused since the documentation reads that to perform
> regtesting, one should use make -k check,
> and that's what I always use too, but because I fixed the above test
> files, contrib/compare_tests obviously complains about them having
> disappeared.
> Does it mean regtesting failed ?
If part of the purpose of a patch is the removal of certain tests, then
if compare_tests is "complaining" about them disappearing, then
arguably compare_tests is in fact verifying that the behavior of the
patch matches the intended behavior. In this case, regression testing
has effectively passed.
> Can I submit the patch in its current
> state or should I do something else before doing so ?
Yes, please submit the patch in its current state, to gcc-patches, and
CC me on it.
Thanks
Dave
> Guess I would get feedback anyway if something's wrong.
>
> I figured I would send it here rather than to gcc-patches, as it's
> more general than a discussion over a single patch.
>
> Thanks,
> Benjamin
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-05-30 23:07 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-05-29 13:09 Testing a patch Benjamin Priour
2023-05-30 23:07 ` David Malcolm
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).