On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 9:44 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 15:38, Krishna Narayanan wrote:
>
>> Yes, it does.
>> I used dg-warning and not dg warning (that was a sheer typing mistake).
>> The warning is about the uninitialized variable being used in the
>> testcase yet there is no warning on that line and the test results in
>> FAIL.
>> I used /* { dg-warning "uninitialized" } */ on that particular line.I
>> used the test in gcc.dg, with other directive /* { dg-options "-O2" }
>> */ .
>> Can you help me where I went wrong?
>>
>
> Don't you need -Wuninitialized in the dg-options as well?
>
Yes I tried it with /* { dg-options "-O2 -Wuninitialized" } */ but still
>> it FAILs.I even tried using -Wmaybe-uninitialized still the outcome is
>> same(FAIL:test for warnings), On trying with /* { dg-bogus "uninitialized"
>> } */ on the particular line it FAILs saying (test for excess errors) and
>> (test for bogus messages) which means it was not expecting a warning but
>> warning arises due to which it FAILs. So why did the initial dg-warning not
>> pass the test ? Thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>> Krishna Narayanan.
>>
>
>
>
