On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 7:10 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 14:28, Akshat Garg <xkspr7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 6:46 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 14:01, Akshat Garg <xkspr7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 5:38 PM Jonathan Wakely <
> jwakely.gcc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 12:37, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 05:23, Akshat Garg <xkspr7@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Hi,
> >> >> > > I have been trying to make a test case for testsuite. In some
> statements, I
> >> >> > > am getting two errors. The other error I am getting is
> >> >> > > error: ISO C90 does not support 'long long'
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Can somebody help me how to write dg-error having two regexes or
> is there
> >> >> > > any dg-option that can suppress these errors? I am making the
> test for C2x.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Do you actually care about the "long long" error? In other words,
> is
> >> >> > checking for that error part of the purpose of the testcase?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If not, you can just suppress it, with either:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > { dg-prune-output "ISO C90 does not support 'long long'" }
> >> >
> >> > Thank you for your reply. I am testing a new type qualifier on
> different types like int, float, _Bool, etc. Therefore, I actually don't
> care about the ISO error. But I have many ISO errors for different types
> like "long long", complex, boolean types. So, should I add these lines for
> each type or can we skip it with some regex?
> >>
> >> If your test is using long long, bool etc then shouldn't it be
> >> compiled with -std=c99 or -std=gnu99?
> >
> > I tried using this option but still no luck. The dg options I am
> applying:
> >
> > * dg-do compile */
> > /* dg-options "-std=c99 -pedantic" */
>
> You need to enclose it in curly braces. See all the examples I showed,
> and the documentation I linked to.
>
Thanks for your help. What a silly mistake I was doing.
