Re: 'g++.dg/modules/modules.exp': don't leak local 'unsupported' proc [PR108899]

On Apr 6, 2023, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Eh, given your "Ooh, nice, I didn't know [...]" comment in > : Oh my, you're right, I apologize, I misremembered. When I wrote "before I saw your patch" yesterday, I meant the formal,

Re: 'g++.dg/modules/modules.exp': don't leak local 'unsupported' proc [PR108899]

n't sufficient. Instead, we should undo the 'rename' at the |> end of 'g++.dg/modules/modules.exp'. OK to push the attached |> "'g++.dg/modules/modules.exp': don't leak local 'unsupported' proc [PR108899]" |> after proper testing? | | Ooh, nice, I didn't know how to drop the ren

Re: 'g++.dg/modules/modules.exp': don't leak local 'unsupported' proc [PR108899]

On Apr 5, 2023, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Given the two "OK"s that you got end of last week, are you going to push > that anytime soon, please? Apologies for the delay. > With... > Co-authored-by: Thomas Schwinge > ... added, I suppose. I wrote the patch based on your report, before

Re: 'g++.dg/modules/modules.exp': don't leak local 'unsupported' proc [PR108899]

Hi Alexandre! On 2023-03-30T10:51:32-0300, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc-patches wrote: > On Mar 30, 2023, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> If we're dropping the renaming, I suppose we could also revert Jakub's >> change. I suppose this patch will take care of it, pending testing... > > Regstrapped on

Re: 'g++.dg/modules/modules.exp': don't leak local 'unsupported' proc [PR108899]

On Mar 30, 2023, at 6:51 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > On Mar 30, 2023, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> If we're dropping the renaming, I suppose we could also revert Jakub's >> change. I suppose this patch will take care of it, pending testing... > > Regstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu and also

Re: 'g++.dg/modules/modules.exp': don't leak local 'unsupported' proc [PR108899]

On 3/30/23 09:51, Alexandre Oliva wrote: On Mar 30, 2023, Alexandre Oliva wrote: If we're dropping the renaming, I suppose we could also revert Jakub's change. I suppose this patch will take care of it, pending testing... Regstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu and also tested on arm-vx7r2 (with

Re: 'g++.dg/modules/modules.exp': don't leak local 'unsupported' proc [PR108899]

On Mar 30, 2023, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > If we're dropping the renaming, I suppose we could also revert Jakub's > change. I suppose this patch will take care of it, pending testing... Regstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu and also tested on arm-vx7r2 (with gcc-12), where I used to get fails after

Re: 'g++.dg/modules/modules.exp': don't leak local 'unsupported' proc [PR108899]

this isn't sufficient. Instead, we should undo the 'rename' at the >> end of 'g++.dg/modules/modules.exp'. OK to push the attached >> "'g++.dg/modules/modules.exp': don't leak local 'unsupported' proc >> [PR108899]" >> after proper testing? > > Ooh, nic

Re: 'g++.dg/modules/modules.exp': don't leak local 'unsupported' proc [PR108899]

hat's a much bigger problem indeed. > ..., this isn't sufficient. Instead, we should undo the 'rename' at the > end of 'g++.dg/modules/modules.exp'. OK to push the attached > "'g++.dg/modules/modules.exp': don't leak local 'unsupported' proc [PR108899]" > after proper testing? Ooh, ni

'g++.dg/modules/modules.exp': don't leak local 'unsupported' proc [PR108899] (was: [PATCH] testsuite: Fix up modules.exp [PR108899])

ow local to 'g++.dg/modules/modules.exp' -- issue about curly braces in 'UNSUPPORTED: [...]' -> 'UNSUPPORTED: {[...]}'? Grüße Thomas - Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634 München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführe