[Bug testsuite/64983] Incomplete summary when regtesting with dejagnu 1.5.2.

["iains at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64983

--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to howarth from comment #4)
> FYI, I posted this to
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-dejagnu/2015-02/msg00001.html and
> emailed Ben Elliston the g++.log files generated under dejagnu 1.5.1 and
> 1.5.2.

well, as I indicated above, I suspect the interesting files are the
*.{sum,log}.sep (and only one set for one language should be enough to figure
out the problem).  However, the content isn't stable… (my analysis stopped at
that point, and haven't had time to resume).

IIRC, parallel make-check-objc is the shortest test-suite that shows the issue.
>From gcc-bugs-return-477722-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Wed Feb 18 20:22:10 2015
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-477722-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 24634 invoked by alias); 18 Feb 2015 20:22:10 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 24566 invoked by uid 48); 18 Feb 2015 20:22:06 -0000
From: "jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/64432] [5 Regression] SYSTEM_CLOCK(COUNT_RATE=rate) wrong result for integer(4)::rate
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 20:22:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P4
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-64432-4-cx4PzJOOER@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-64432-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-64432-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-02/txt/msg02055.txt.bz2
Content-length: 633

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idd432

--- Comment #24 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #22)
>  count_rate(8),count_max(1) =                    0  127
>
> OK, but the last line looks strange: lacking documentation,
> I'd expect the rate to be 1, not 0.  (Not that I'd use that
> in real code...).

Yes, tha last one is wrong. I will look into it.

I realize that by adding an additional argument we modify the interface so we
may have to do something with symbol versioning.  Doing it the way I did
eliminates multiple calls but there are always trade-offs