On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 3:56 AM Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 3:33 PM Lewis Hyatt <lhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 11:36 PM Alexandre Oliva <ol...@adacore.com> wrote: > > > > > > This backport for gcc-13 is the first of two required for the > > > g++.dg/pch/line-map-3.C test to stop hitting a variant of the known > > > problem mentioned in that testcase: on riscv64-elf and riscv32-elf, > > > after restoring the PCH, the location of the macros is mentioned as if > > > they were on line 3 rather than 2, so even the existing xfails fail. I > > > think this might be too much to backport, and I'm ready to use an xfail > > > instead, but since this would bring more predictability, I thought I'd > > > ask whether you'd find this backport acceptable. > > > > > > Regstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu, along with other backports, and tested > > > manually on riscv64-elf. Ok to install? > > > > Sorry that test is causing a problem, I hadn't realized at first that > > the wrong output was target-dependent. I feel like simply deleting > > this test g++.dg/pch/line-map-3.C from GCC 13 branch should be fine > > too, as a safer alternative, if release managers prefer? > > Yes please. > > Richard.
Committed that removal as r13-8353. -Lewis
