On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 1:46 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 07:39, Krishna Narayanan <
> krishnanarayanan132002@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> Yes, but it fails differently now. You need to read the output more
> carefully. Look at the gcc.log file, which shows you the full output. When
> you enable warnings there are TWO warnings printed. You are only testing
> for one.
>
> You can also compile the test by hand using the same options. What
> happens? You get TWO warnings. You only tested for one. So it's going to
> FAIL.
>
> The log file should show something like this:
>
> PASS: test.c (test for warnings, line 10)
> FAIL: test.c (test for excess errors)
> Excess errors:
> test.c:6: warning: 'a' may be used uninitialized [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
>
> That means it matched the dg-warning on line 10, but there was also
> another warning on line 6, which dejagnu thinks was unexpected (because you
> didn't tell it to expect it or to ignore it). That makes the test fail.
>
>> Yes understood,all tests have been PASSed,hopefully I should submit a
>> patch(testcase) for the bug,just getting it regtested.
>>
> Thanks a lot,
>>
> Krishna Narayanan
>>
>
>
>
