From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8505 invoked by alias); 31 Oct 2014 19:23:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 8494 invoked by uid 89); 31 Oct 2014 19:23:49 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (83.163.83.176) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 19:23:47 +0000 Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id s9VJNYdl007467; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 20:23:35 +0100 (CET) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3/Submit) id s9VJNYFW025974; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 20:23:34 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 19:23:00 -0000 Message-Id: <201410311923.s9VJNYFW025974@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: dje@google.com CC: arnez@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, sandra@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: (message from Doug Evans on Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:02:11 -0700) Subject: Re: GCC switch to C11 causes many testsuite compiler diagnostics References: <544BD7E6.1050602@codesourcery.com> <201410251728.s9PHSg6v018247@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <87zjcd8r1r.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg00861.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:02:11 -0700 > From: Doug Evans > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Andreas Arnez wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 25 2014, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > >>> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 11:03:34 -0600 > >>> From: Sandra Loosemore > >>> > >>> Comparing my latest nios2 test results (with Pedro's thread patch) with > >>> those from a checkout a couple weeks old, I noticed I had some new > >>> ERRORs due to apparent compilation failures. I tracked this down to the > >>> recent change on GCC mainline (r216247) to make the default C dialect > >>> GNU11, which enables -Wimplicit-int and -Wimplicit-function-declaration > >>> by default. I started working on a patch to fix the offending > >>> testcases, but realized that there are hundreds of them. :-( > >>> > >>> So, before I invest a lot more time on this, is updating the GDB > >>> testsuite to use a more modern C dialect the Right Thing To Do? I'm > >>> also wondering if it's really necessary to support compilers that can't > >>> handle function prototypes in the testsuite (not defining PROTOTYPES > >>> seems to be the default, in fact). > >> > >> We've quite deliberately kept around a variety of C dialects and > >> coding styles to make sure GDB works with whatever style people use. > >> Having the majority of the tests use K&R style function declarations > >> is probably not so useful anymore. But there are some tests that > >> deliberately use K&_R style code to test whether GDB handles them > >> properly. So blind conversion is probably not a good idea. > > > > Do you know off hand which tests deliberately use K&R style code? Maybe > > you'd like to verify that none of them is deleted by this patch series: > > > > https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2014-10/msg00802.html > > fwiw, I think this is the way to proceed. > > Find/pick a few tests that are explicitly for K&R, mark them as such, > and move on. > Life's short and there are so many vastly more important things to do than > worry about losing some K&R coverage. If an issue turns up, we'll have > real data to support a real K&R test. FWIW, those that explicitly and unconditionally use "set prototypes 0" are deliberately testing K&R stuff. And it would probably make sense to run callfuncs.exp in both modes on all platforms.