On Aug 4, 2020, at 5:54 PM, Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> As you find it difficult to express a test using the existing mechanisms,
>> let's talk about those and see if anyone has a good idea on how to express
>> it. I think ICEs are the most annoying to manage, but, I think excess and
>> prune should be able to handle them. I think should get an error or
>> warning, or should not get an error or warning are more trivial to manage.
>
> I experimented with
> // { dg-prune-output ".*internal compiler error.*" }
> // { dg-xfail-if "" { *-*-* } }
> but it's a mouthful and the results were poor (when the ICE is fixed but we
> generate errors instead). dg-ice is convenient, handles even the different
> kind of ICE (when the diagnostic routines were re-entered), and generates
> nice XPASSes when the ICE goes away.
>
> I've also played games with dg-regexp but it was too ugly.
>
> (I honestly don't see why new directives are such a big deal, if they're
> properly documented.)
I don't see a bogus here? I think that can't be skipped.
