http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53028
--- Comment #10 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-04-28 00:02:13 UTC --- (In reply to comment #9) > also don't test that the warning goes away with -w. We don't test the warning > turns into an error with -Werror. Don't we? http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-04/msg01778.html > How many times has one of these tests caught someone modifying a pedantic into > a warning? How many times has one of these tests caught someone modifying a > pedantic into an error? How many times did someone modify a pedantic in one > of > the two ways because a testcase wasn't present? The current practice is a burden for developers and for running the testsuite. Adding dg-pedantic will make it only a burden for running the testsuite (but it will actually make the testsuite smaller!). Perhaps we can devise an indirect way to test that a warning is enabled by a certain option. We could have { dg-warning-with-option "Wlong-long" "ISO C90 does not support 'long long'" }, which will match the option shown with -fdiagnostics-show-option. Can we at least have this? > Feel free to use your best recollection for the above answers. I can't help > but think the numbers are so low, as to not be worth the cost of the > additional > testcases. Fair enough. But the duplicated testcases are still being added!
