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.