* Re: [RFC] c++, libstdc++: Default make check vs. tests for newest C++ standard
2022-10-19 8:40 [RFC] c++, libstdc++: Default make check vs. tests for newest C++ standard Jakub Jelinek
@ 2022-10-19 8:54 ` Jonathan Wakely
2022-10-19 13:10 ` Jason Merrill
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2022-10-19 8:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jakub Jelinek; +Cc: Jason Merrill, gcc
On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 at 09:40, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> The screw-up on my side with libstdc++ testing (tested normally rather
> than in C++23 mode) makes me wonder if we couldn't tweak the default
> testing.
> Dunno what libstdc++ testing normally does (just C++17?),
That's the default unless a test has something else in -std=gnu++17
but I do my local testing with:
set target_list {
"unix{,-D_GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI=0,-std=gnu++2b,-std=gnu++11}" }
and then push to the compile farm and test with:
set target_list {
"unix{,-std=c++98,-std=gnu++11,-std=gnu++20,-D_GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI=0/-D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG,-D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG,-std=gnu++23}"
}
That's far too slow to force on everybody though.
> make check-g++
> tests by default { 98, 14, 17, 20 } (and I regularly use
> GXX_TESTSUITE_STDS=98,11,14,17,20,2b in environment but that doesn't
> cover libstdc++ I guess).
It doesn't, correct. It's been on my TODO list for a couple of years.
> When adding tests for upcoming C++ version, one always has a dilemma
> whether to use explicit // { dg-options "-std=c++2b" }
> or -std=gnu++2b and similar, then the test works in all modes, but it might
> be forgotten later on to be converted into // { dg-do whatever { target c++23 } }
> test so that when 23 is tested by default and say 26 or 29 appears too,
> we test it also in those modes, or just go with
> // { dg-do whatever { target c++23 } }
> which has the disadvantage that it is skipped when testing by default and
> one only tests it if he asks for the newer version.
The convention is:
// { dg-options "-std=gnu++23" }
// { dg-do whatever { target c++23 } }
When that becomes the default, we'll remove the first line, so that it
runs for all later versions.
See r12-678 to r12-686 which removed the dg-options "-std=gnu++17"
after that became the default for g++.
I should have noticed you were missing that from some of the new
tests, sorry. I saw it in a few and didn't check them all.
> I wonder if we couldn't for the default testing (when one doesn't
> specify GXX_TESTSUITE_STDS or uses make check-c++-all and similar)
> improve things a little bit by automatically treat those
> // { dg-do whatever { target c++23 } }
> tests as // { dg-options "-std=c++2b" }.
>
> g++-dg.exp has:
> # If the testcase specifies a standard, use that one.
> # If not, run it under several standards, allowing GNU extensions
> # if there's a dg-options line.
> if ![search_for $test "-std=*++"] {
> if [search_for $test "dg-options"] {
> set std_prefix "-std=gnu++"
> } else {
> set std_prefix "-std=c++"
> }
>
> # See g++.exp for the initial value of this list.
> global gpp_std_list
> if { [llength $gpp_std_list] > 0 } {
> set std_list $gpp_std_list
> } else {
> set std_list { 98 14 17 20 }
> }
> set option_list { }
> foreach x $std_list {
> # Handle "concepts" as C++17 plus Concepts TS.
> if { $x eq "concepts" } then { set x "17 -fconcepts"
> } elseif { $x eq "impcx" } then { set x "23 -fimplicit-constexpr" }
> lappend option_list "${std_prefix}$x"
> }
> } else {
> set option_list { "" }
> }
>
> set nshort [file tail [file dirname $test]]/[file tail $test]
>
> foreach flags_t $option_list {
> verbose "Testing $nshort, $flags $flags_t" 1
> dg-test $test "$flags $flags_t" ${default-extra-flags}
> }
> so I wonder if in the set std_list { 98 14 17 20 } spot we couldn't do
> something like special search_for for "{ dg-do * { target c++23 } }"
> and if so, set std_list { 2b } instead of set std_list { 98 14 17 20 }?
> It wouldn't handle more complex cases like
> // { dg-do compile { target { c++23 && { aarch64*-*-* powerpc64le*-*-linux* riscv*-*-* s390*-*-* sparc*-*-linux* } } } }
> but at least for the majority of tests for the new language version
> it would run them even in default testing where they'd be otherwise
> skipped (we'd cycle over 98 14 17 20 only to see it doesn't satisfy any of
> them).
> If we wanted to go even further, we could handle similarly say c++11_only
> tests.
>
> What do you think?
But libstdc++ doesn't use g++.exp so we need to start using that (or
something like it) in libstdc++ before any such changes would help.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: [RFC] c++, libstdc++: Default make check vs. tests for newest C++ standard
2022-10-19 8:40 [RFC] c++, libstdc++: Default make check vs. tests for newest C++ standard Jakub Jelinek
2022-10-19 8:54 ` Jonathan Wakely
@ 2022-10-19 13:10 ` Jason Merrill
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jason Merrill @ 2022-10-19 13:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jakub Jelinek, Jonathan Wakely; +Cc: gcc
On 10/19/22 04:40, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The screw-up on my side with libstdc++ testing (tested normally rather
> than in C++23 mode) makes me wonder if we couldn't tweak the default
> testing.
> Dunno what libstdc++ testing normally does (just C++17?), make check-g++
> tests by default { 98, 14, 17, 20 } (and I regularly use
> GXX_TESTSUITE_STDS=98,11,14,17,20,2b in environment but that doesn't
> cover libstdc++ I guess).
> When adding tests for upcoming C++ version, one always has a dilemma
> whether to use explicit // { dg-options "-std=c++2b" }
> or -std=gnu++2b and similar, then the test works in all modes, but it might
> be forgotten later on to be converted into // { dg-do whatever { target c++23 } }
> test so that when 23 is tested by default and say 26 or 29 appears too,
> we test it also in those modes, or just go with
> // { dg-do whatever { target c++23 } }
> which has the disadvantage that it is skipped when testing by default and
> one only tests it if he asks for the newer version.
>
> I wonder if we couldn't for the default testing (when one doesn't
> specify GXX_TESTSUITE_STDS or uses make check-c++-all and similar)
> improve things a little bit by automatically treat those
> // { dg-do whatever { target c++23 } }
> tests as // { dg-options "-std=c++2b" }.
That would be great.
> g++-dg.exp has:
> # If the testcase specifies a standard, use that one.
> # If not, run it under several standards, allowing GNU extensions
> # if there's a dg-options line.
> if ![search_for $test "-std=*++"] {
> if [search_for $test "dg-options"] {
> set std_prefix "-std=gnu++"
> } else {
> set std_prefix "-std=c++"
> }
>
> # See g++.exp for the initial value of this list.
> global gpp_std_list
> if { [llength $gpp_std_list] > 0 } {
> set std_list $gpp_std_list
> } else {
> set std_list { 98 14 17 20 }
> }
> set option_list { }
> foreach x $std_list {
> # Handle "concepts" as C++17 plus Concepts TS.
> if { $x eq "concepts" } then { set x "17 -fconcepts"
> } elseif { $x eq "impcx" } then { set x "23 -fimplicit-constexpr" }
> lappend option_list "${std_prefix}$x"
> }
> } else {
> set option_list { "" }
> }
>
> set nshort [file tail [file dirname $test]]/[file tail $test]
>
> foreach flags_t $option_list {
> verbose "Testing $nshort, $flags $flags_t" 1
> dg-test $test "$flags $flags_t" ${default-extra-flags}
> }
> so I wonder if in the set std_list { 98 14 17 20 } spot we couldn't do
> something like special search_for for "{ dg-do * { target c++23 } }"
> and if so, set std_list { 2b } instead of set std_list { 98 14 17 20 }?
> It wouldn't handle more complex cases like
> // { dg-do compile { target { c++23 && { aarch64*-*-* powerpc64le*-*-linux* riscv*-*-* s390*-*-* sparc*-*-linux* } } } }
> but at least for the majority of tests for the new language version
> it would run them even in default testing where they'd be otherwise
> skipped (we'd cycle over 98 14 17 20 only to see it doesn't satisfy any of
> them).
> If we wanted to go even further, we could handle similarly say c++11_only
> tests.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Jakub
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread