[Bug fortran/50288] New: FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03

[Bug fortran/50288] New: FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03

[hjl.tools at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288

             Bug #: 50288
           Summary: FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03
    Classification: Unclassified
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.7.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: fortran
        AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org
        ReportedBy: hjl.tools@gmail.com
                CC: janus@gcc.gnu.org


On Linux/x86, revision 178509:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2011-09/msg00120.html

gave:

FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03  -O1  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03  -O2  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  (test for excess
errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops
-finline-functions  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops  (test
for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03  -O3 -g  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03  -Os  (test for excess errors)

[Bug fortran/50288] FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288

--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> 2011-09-04 19:18:00 UTC ---
I think I understand what's happening, although I don't know how to fix it:

(1) gfortran.dg/class_45a.f03 is compiled and generate g_nodes.mod,
(2) gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03 is compiled and run with -O0,
(3) g_nodes.mod is cleaned due to "! { dg-final { cleanup-modules "G_Nodes" }
}"
(4) gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03 is proceeded with -O1 but g_nodes.mod is no
longer there, hence the failure:

Fatal Error: Can't open module file 'g_nodes.mod' for reading at (1): No such
file or directory^M
FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03  -O1  (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03:9:6: Fatal Error: Can't
open module file 'g_nodes.mod' for reading at (1): No such file or direc
tory

[Bug fortran/50288] FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288

Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2011-09-04
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> 2011-09-04 19:18:48 UTC ---
Indeed I confirm!-)

[Bug fortran/50288] FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03

[burnus at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288

Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |burnus at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-09-04 19:54:56 UTC ---
An evil trick would be the following, which causes a run once:

--- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03
@@ -1 +1 @@
-! { dg-do run }
+! { dg-do  run }

[Bug fortran/50288] FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288

--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> 2011-09-04 20:35:36 UTC ---
> An evil trick would be the following, which causes a run once: ...

It works, but I think if this trick is used, it should be documented as in
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/cray_pointers_2.f90:

! Using two spaces between dg-do and run is a hack to keep gfortran-dg-runtest
! from cycling through optimization options for this expensive test.

Another working possibility is to remove the line

! { dg-final { cleanup-modules "G_Nodes" } }

from gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03 and add an empty "cleaning" test:

cat ./gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/class_45c.f03

! { dg-do run }
!
! PR 50227: [4.7 Regression] [OOP] ICE-on-valid with allocatable class variable
!
! Contributed by Andrew Benson <abenson@caltech.edu>

program Test
end program Test

! { dg-final { cleanup-modules "G_Nodes" } }

Note that it will be impossible to test gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03 alone.

[Bug fortran/50288] FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03

[burnus at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288

--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-09-04 21:19:31 UTC ---
I think one problem is that
  ! { dg-additional-sources class_45a.f03 }
compiles the additional source *after* the main file. That's not trivially
fixable as the library part of $options needs to come after the files - thus,
one would need a new global variable, which is then used before $file in the
compiler execution.


(In reply to comment #4)
> > An evil trick would be the following, which causes a run once: ...

A better way is the following patch, which adds "dg-do run-once", which should
then also be applied to cray_pointers_2.f90. I think a "dg-do run-once" is also
useful to tests of libgfortran for which running a test case multiple times is
just a waste for time. One still should add a comment in class_45{a,b}.f90 to
denote this nonobvious file dependency.


--- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/gfortran-dg.exp
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/gfortran-dg.exp
@@ -104,7 +104,9 @@ proc gfortran-dg-runtest { testcases default-extra-flags }
{

        # look if this is dg-do-run test, in which case
        # we cycle through the option list, otherwise we don't
-       if [expr [search_for $test "dg-do run"]] {
+       if [expr [search_for $test "dg-do +run-once"]] {
+           set option_list [list { -O } ]
+       } elseif [expr [search_for $test "dg-do +run"]] {
            set option_list $torture_with_loops
        } else {
            set option_list [list { -O } ]

[Bug fortran/50288] FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03

[janus at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288

--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-05 12:26:14 UTC ---
Sorry for the breakage, guys. Of course I *did* check the test case before
committing, but for some reason the failures did not occur on my machine (I
have no idea why).



(In reply to comment #5)
> A better way is the following patch, which adds "dg-do run-once", which should
> then also be applied to cray_pointers_2.f90.

That sounds reasonable (much better than the evil "double blank" trick). Ok
with me.

[Bug fortran/50288] FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03

[burnus at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288

--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-09-05 12:30:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> That sounds reasonable (much better than the evil "double blank" trick). Ok
> with me.

Can you package it? (This patch, modification to class_45b.f03 w/ comment, and
to cray_pointers_2.f90.) As test-suite patch, it probably should probably be
rubber stamped by a test-suite maintained such as Rainer Orth.

[Bug fortran/50288] FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03

[janus at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288

janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot       |janus at gcc dot gnu.org
                   |gnu.org                     |

--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-05 12:49:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > That sounds reasonable (much better than the evil "double blank" trick). Ok
> > with me.
> 
> Can you package it? (This patch, modification to class_45b.f03 w/ comment, and
> to cray_pointers_2.f90.) As test-suite patch, it probably should probably be
> rubber stamped by a test-suite maintained such as Rainer Orth.

Sure, I'll take care of it. Thanks for your help in fixing this so quickly.

[Bug fortran/50288] FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03

[janus at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288

--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-05 13:52:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> A better way is the following patch, which adds "dg-do run-once", which should
> then also be applied to cray_pointers_2.f90.

I think one should also do this for class_4{a-d}.f03, where Tobias apparently
worked around the problem by adding an extra file (just to do the cleanup).

Also, I still don't understand why I did not see the problem. Maybe this could
be due to different dejagnu versions (mine is 1.4.4)?

[Bug fortran/50288] FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03

[burnus at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288

--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-09-05 15:19:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> I think one should also do this for class_4{a-d}.f03, where Tobias apparently
> worked around the problem by adding an extra file (just to do the cleanup).

Thanks for the honor but that was Paul's patch (cf. PR 40440). The big
difference is: That's a "dg-do compile" patch. (I might have added a mod
cleanup to one of the files.)

And no, it does not make sense there. The issue only occurs for "dg-do run" -
as after each compile/run, the cleanup is done. But with dg-do compile as with
dg-do run-once, one has only a single run. Thus, that the .mod file from the
previous test is removed, does not matter.

> Also, I still don't understand why I did not see the problem. Maybe this could
> be due to different dejagnu versions (mine is 1.4.4)?

No idea, but I have also 1.4.4 installed - and I do see - as expected - the
failure.

[Bug fortran/50288] FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03

[janus at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288

--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-05 15:59:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > I think one should also do this for class_4{a-d}.f03, where Tobias apparently
> > worked around the problem by adding an extra file (just to do the cleanup).
> 
> Thanks for the honor but that was Paul's patch (cf. PR 40440).

I did not check which commit it came from, I just saw your name in the file
header ;)


> The big difference is: That's a "dg-do compile" patch.

No. class_4c.f03 clearly has "dg-do run". class_4d.f03 only has "dg-do
compile", but as commented, it is only meant to do the cleanup.

I would assume this extra file for the cleanup was added to work around exactly
the problem we're discussing here.

[Bug fortran/50288] FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03

[janus at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288

--- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-05 19:33:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/gfortran-dg.exp
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/gfortran-dg.exp
> @@ -104,7 +104,9 @@ proc gfortran-dg-runtest { testcases default-extra-flags }
> {
> 
>         # look if this is dg-do-run test, in which case
>         # we cycle through the option list, otherwise we don't
> -       if [expr [search_for $test "dg-do run"]] {
> +       if [expr [search_for $test "dg-do +run-once"]] {
> +           set option_list [list { -O } ]
> +       } elseif [expr [search_for $test "dg-do +run"]] {
>             set option_list $torture_with_loops
>         } else {
>             set option_list [list { -O } ]


Unfortunately, the patch in comment #5 does not really work for me. When using
"dg-do run-once" in class_45b.f03, I get:

ERROR: gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03  -O : 1: syntax error for " dg-do 1 run-once "

Apparently it is not possible to add new 'dg-do' keywords, cf. e.g.:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-01/msg02347.html

[Bug fortran/50288] FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03

[janus at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288

--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-05 19:52:53 UTC ---
Ok, since class_45{a,b} is not really a run-time test, I think the best
solution would be to just convert it to "dg-do link":


Index: class_45b.f03
===================================================================
--- class_45b.f03       (revision 178551)
+++ class_45b.f03       (working copy)
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-! { dg-do run }
+! { dg-do link }
 ! { dg-additional-sources class_45a.f03 }
 !
 ! PR 50227: [4.7 Regression] [OOP] ICE-on-valid with allocatable class
variable


I assume this should get rid of the errors. Can anyone confirm that? (Since I
do not see the failures, I can not check it myself.)

One could do the same with class_4{a,b,c}, since this one also does not contain
any actual run-time checking (but was committed to check for a compile-time
error).

If I get a confirmation the the above patch fixes the errors, I will commit it
as obvious.

[Bug fortran/50288] FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03

[burnus at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288

--- Comment #14 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-09-06 06:49:11 UTC ---
Sorry for missing the issue with "run-once"; I thought I had tested it, but
seemingly I haven't done so.

(In reply to comment #13)
> Ok, since class_45{a,b} is not really a run-time test, I think the best
> solution would be to just convert it to "dg-do link":

Good idea; the patch is preapproved, but I have not yet tested it.

[Bug fortran/50288] FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03

[janus at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288

--- Comment #15 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-06 12:19:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> > Ok, since class_45{a,b} is not really a run-time test, I think the best
> > solution would be to just convert it to "dg-do link":
> 
> Good idea; the patch is preapproved, but I have not yet tested it.

Thanks. Could anyone please test it? Unfortunately I cannot do it myself. One
doesn't even have to run the whole testsuite, just class_45 with the patch from
comment #13 would be enough.

[Bug fortran/50288] FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03

[burnus at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288

--- Comment #16 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-09-07 07:56:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> +++ class_45b.f03       (working copy)
> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> -! { dg-do run }
> +! { dg-do link }

With that change, I get:
... gcc-build/gcc> make check-gfortran RUNTESTFLAGS='dg.exp=class_45?.f03'
[...]
                === gfortran Summary ===
# of expected passes            2

Thus, the patch seems to work.

[Bug fortran/50288] FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03

[janus at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288

--- Comment #17 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-07 10:56:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> Thus, the patch seems to work.

Ok, thanks for checking. I'll commit as obvious the change to "dg-do link" for
class_45 and class_4.

[Bug fortran/50288] FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03

[janus at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288

--- Comment #18 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-07 13:31:07 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Sep  7 13:31:04 2011
New Revision: 178635

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178635
Log:
2011-09-07  Janus Weil  <janus@gcc.gnu.org>

    PR fortran/50288
    * gfortran.dg/class_4c.f03: Modified ("dg-do link" and "dg-final").
    * gfortran.dg/class_4d.f03: Deleted.
    * gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03: Modififed ("dg-do link").

Removed:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/class_4d.f03
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/class_4c.f03

[Bug fortran/50288] FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03

[janus at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288

janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED

--- Comment #19 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-07 13:33:05 UTC ---
Fixed with r178635. Closing.