From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3948 invoked by alias); 5 Sep 2011 15:20:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 3937 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Sep 2011 15:20:06 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 05 Sep 2011 15:19:52 +0000 From: "burnus at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug fortran/50288] FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_45b.f03 Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 15:20:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: janus at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-09/txt/msg00328.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288 --- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus 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.