On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 09:53:47AM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Hi Andre, hi all,
>
> Andre Vehreschild wrote:
> > yes, I could have looked harder 🙂
>
> I wrote ;-) on purpose as this feature is somewhat hidden and writing 'dg-do
> compile' doesn't harm.
I think an explicit dg-do is better, otherwise one has to just guess
for some tests what has been actually intentional (see the recent
torture tests which were just compile time but written most likely to be
runtime; I've changed a few, Sam changed more).
Also, the subject line has too few digits in the PR number I think (9
missing?).
Otherwise LGTM.
Jakub
