On Wed, 2018-08-08 at 11:36 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-08-08 at 11:28 -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> > On 08/08/2018 10:46 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> >
> > > [...snip...]
> > >
> > > We don't seem to have much test coverage for this code. Sorry to
> > > be a
> > > pain, but could you please try adding a testcase of a diagnostic
> > > issued
> > > from within a couple of levels of nested includes, perhaps using
> > >
> > > /* { dg-options "-fdiagnostics-show-caret" } */
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > > /* { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
> > > { dg-end-multiline-output "" } */
> > >
> > > (or dg-regexp if need be for dealing with arbitrary paths in
> > > filenames)
> >
> > I could never get existing dejagnu check this particular piece of
> > output. AFAICT this is all unconditionally pruned before the
> > output
> > scanners get a look-see. On the modules branch I ended up hacking
> > in
> > a
> > pre-pruned-output hook. It's not pretty.
>
> In r255786 I adjusted prune.exp to move the dg-regexp handling to
> before the pruning. Unfortunately, handle-multiline-outputs is still
> after the pruning. I guess we could try moving that to before as
> well,
> but I suspect it might break some things.
Alternatively, could the test cases in r255786 (aka
6d8c9f39007790df9c08fca1e4c458a22b04e9c4) be adapted to provide some
test coverage of this? (they use dg-regexp for the awkward lines)
