On 7/27/21 5:07 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Hi Sandra, hi Thomas, hi all,
> 
> @Thomas K: Comments about the following - and of course to the
> testsuite itself - are highly welcome.
> 
> In my opinion, the testsuite LGTM and can be committed.
> 
> @Sandra:
> - Thoughts on the directory name? (cf. below)
> - Give others/Thomas a chance to comment on this,
>    before committing it. (And remove the now passing xfails.)
>    Thanks for the testsuite!
> 
> Regarding:
> 
> * XFAILS - as discussed before, I think having some XFAILS is
>    not ideal but fine, especially if the XFAIL/PASS ratio is low
>    and there are plans to fix the known fails, some posted patches
>    for those, and open PRs for the issues.
> 
> (I think there is one patch pending review and two patches pending
> committal with some modifications by Sandra - plus several patches
> by José which still need to be reviewed.)
> 
> 
> * Naming of the directory + .exp file:
>       ts29113/ts29113.exp
>    is okay. Given that 'select rank' (in F2018 but not in TS29113)
>    is also tested, there was some controversy regarding the name
>    and the coverage; additionally, TS29113 is a name which is not
>    immediately clear. Thus, we could use some other name like:
>       c-interop/c-interop.exp
>    or .... (suggestions?).
>    In any case, I do not feel strong about either name.
> 
> * I had a closer look at earlier versions of the testsuite, I did
>    browse through the current one + looked at the diff to previous
>    version, but it is big enough and the spec is complex enough that
>    I have likely missed something.
>    Thus: Additional reviews are highly welcome!

Here is the current version of the testsuite.  Changes since the last 
version include:

* Renaming the directory and .exp file from ts29113 -> c-interop per the 
request above.  There have been no additional review comments.

* I also made it explicit that section and constraint numbers mentioned 
in comments in the test cases refer to TS 29113.  I considered using the 
numbering from 2018 standard, but given that the standard already 
renumbered things twice since the time TS 29113 was published I didn't 
really see the point, as long as it is unambiguous what document is 
being cited.

* I flattened the subdirectory structure after realizing that 
dg-additional-sources can't cope with relative pathnames in remote-host 
testing.

* I split up the typecodes tests (for testing that descriptors 
constructed by the front end match ISO_Fortran_binding.h) to allow for 
finer-grained control over xfails and dg-require-effective-target, and 
added a new effective target for Fortran C_FLOAT128 support.  There are 
also some additional things being tested now in this group.

The current xfails in the tests reflect the two patches I posted last 
night that are still waiting for review:

https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-August/056382.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-August/056383.html

I've been testing on x86 (both 32- and 64-bit) and powerpc64le-linux-gnu.

Given that Tobias already said the last version of the patch was OK, I'd 
like to commit this soon, either at the same time I push the patches 
above, or next week if there is some hold-up on them.  If anybody wants 
more time to review this first, let me know.

-Sandra