From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86C54385E037 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 08:57:54 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 86C54385E037 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1666342674; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=Ba5+2FUeWEhjj8g17ADXURrAH/n+6kI185sP3h5q5y4=; b=ckhA2reI8zhz4ww1dnV9H0ti4qVbnKXQZFP35YbhQ9KXJGqBFsxYRXGlwgBkJ76Sn6+xSa ickC1NN8cesFGD0mhdEKKqHDufrNJ129HzNgvC4oqnil6fX4gJSnjH/TYMIlmVSgSQqD/W 8oIbVo4qUXipkNwfGOHRdg4ZApvpMEI= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-669-VlV3xOmjNBWAIVHM_rwPhQ-1; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 04:57:52 -0400 X-MC-Unique: VlV3xOmjNBWAIVHM_rwPhQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 100DF3C0D86E for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 08:57:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.39.193.252]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCCD640F156; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 08:57:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 29L8vnq63491918 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 21 Oct 2022 10:57:49 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 29L8vm7O3491917; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 10:57:48 +0200 Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 10:57:48 +0200 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Florian Weimer Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: C89isms in the test suite Message-ID: Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <87wn8tbmdr.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87wn8tbmdr.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.10 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 10:40:16AM +0200, Florian Weimer via Gcc wrote: > What should we do about these when they are not relevant to what's being > tested? For example, gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/mzero6.c > has this: > > int main () > { > if (__builtin_copysign (1.0, func (0.0 / -5.0, 10)) != -1.0) > abort (); > exit (0); > } > > but no include files, so abort and exit are implicitly declared. > > Should we inject a header with -include with the most common > declarations (which includes at least abort and exit)? Or add the > missing #include directives? But the latter might not work for > freestanding targets. > > Implicit ints and function declarations without prototypes are also > common (not just for main). > > Other tests look like they might be intended to be built in C89 mode, > e.g. gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/386.c, although it's not > immediately obvious to me what they test. I think these days we at least for abort tend to use __builtin_abort (); if we don't want to declare it (in other tests we declare it ourselves). exit we usually don't use at all, but sometimes we handle it similarly to abort. Jakub