Xi Ruoyao <xry...@xry111.site> writes:
> On Sat, 2024-07-20 at 06:52 +0100, Sam James wrote:
>> Some distributions like Gentoo make -Wformat and -Wformat-security
>> enabled by default. Pass -Wno-format to the test to avoid a spurious
>> fail in such environments.
>>
>> gcc/testsuite/
>> PR rtl-optimization/115929
>> * gcc.dg/torture/pr115929-1.c: Pass -Wno-format.
>> ---
>
> IMO if you are patching GCC downstream to enable some options, you can
> patch the test case in the same .patch file anyway instead of pushing it
> upstream.
>
> If we take the responsibility to make the test suite anticipate random
> downstream changes, the test suite will ended up filled with different
> workarounds for 42 distros.
Yeah, I'm worried about that too.
> If we have to anticipate downstream changes we should make a policy
> about which changes we must anticipate (hmm and if we'll anticipate -
> Wformat by default why not add a configuration option for it by the
> way?), or do it in a more generic way (using a .spec file to explicitly
> give the "baseline" options for testing?)
Two systematic ways of dealing with this under the current testsuite
framework would be:
(1) Make dg-torture.exp add -w by default. This is what gcc.c-torture
already does. Then, tests that want to test for warnings can
enable them explicitly.
Some of the existing dg-warnings are already due to lack of -w,
rather than something that the test was originally designed for.
E.g. pr26565.c.
(2) Make dg-torture.exp add -Wall -Wextra by default, so that tests
have to suppress any warnings they don't want.
Personally, I'd prefer one of those two rather than patching upstream
tests for downstream changes.
Thanks,
Richard
