On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Dave Korn wrote:
Possibly we could modify the algorithm that enumerates directories matching
$tool.* to look for (e.g.) *$tool.* and then name directories like
c.c++.dg?
The algorithm is hardcoded in core DejaGnu (runtest.exp).
--
Joseph S. Myers
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 05:38:01PM -0700, Janis Johnson wrote:
I've been thinking about that lately, it would be useful for several
kinds of functionality. We'd want effective targets for the language
for using different options and for providing different error/warning
checks for each
2009/8/7 Janis Johnson janis...@us.ibm.com:
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 00:06 +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
Often I want to test the exactly same testcase in C and C++, so I find
myself adding duplicate tests under gcc.dg/ and g++.dg/. Would it be
possible to have a shared testsuite dir that is
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 15:48 +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
Janis, it would be extremely useful to have dg-options that are only
enabled for certain languages, so I can do
/* { dg-options -std=c99 { dg-require-effective-target c } } */
/* { dg-options { dg-require-effective-target c++ } }
Often I want to test the exactly same testcase in C and C++, so I find
myself adding duplicate tests under gcc.dg/ and g++.dg/. Would it be
possible to have a shared testsuite dir that is run for both C and C++
languages? (possibly with different default configurations, like
adding -Wc++-compat to
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
Often I want to test the exactly same testcase in C and C++, so I find
myself adding duplicate tests under gcc.dg/ and g++.dg/. Would it be
possible to have a shared testsuite dir that is run for both C and C++
languages? (possibly with different
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 00:06 +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
Often I want to test the exactly same testcase in C and C++, so I find
myself adding duplicate tests under gcc.dg/ and g++.dg/. Would it be
possible to have a shared testsuite dir that is run for both C and C++
languages? (possibly
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Janis Johnson wrote:
I've been thinking about that lately, it would be useful for several
kinds of functionality. We'd want effective targets for the language
for using different options and for providing different error/warning
checks for each language. I haven't looked
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Janis Johnson wrote:
I've been thinking about that lately, it would be useful for several
kinds of functionality. We'd want effective targets for the language
for using different options and for providing different error/warning
checks for each
