From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 47628 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2020 21:19:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 47613 invoked by uid 89); 9 Feb 2020 21:19:23 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-10.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=Kargl, latitude X-HELO: us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (HELO us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com) (207.211.31.81) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sun, 09 Feb 2020 21:19:22 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1581283160; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=I7qCzgiGFng0sBYNH/k/xU9II9MFBI9NduZ3XPBwsrg=; b=eJFAciSJPYgCMCDjfbjQJnsXkKAjhcV1Ekj5i6jtsKJJxJSdFd5MBcgr5NC2WmTT5/M6LA wgZtZ+9iIaE0owoY6sZ9RHmp1rWVf5tRI2OSFzBLXiv/UPRK5RJAwfS3S+Q+LTscWVaE6m DZmQesevkYKE+f9k3aCcKQyRUusob08= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-429-9Lqe1kW2Pq6wnWbepJSDNw-1; Sun, 09 Feb 2020 16:19:16 -0500 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 539F6800D48; Sun, 9 Feb 2020 21:19:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ovpn-116-56.phx2.redhat.com (ovpn-116-56.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.116.56]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52BCE1000325; Sun, 9 Feb 2020 21:19:14 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <023d55a415d2100dda16c8ddb6fe01ea5f598728.camel@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] analyzer: gfortran testsuite support From: David Malcolm To: sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu, Toon Moene Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, fortran@gcc.gnu.org Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2020 21:19:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20200209205511.GA63077@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <20200206200144.14304-1-dmalcolm@redhat.com> <3fff5fee-8ac0-b3d1-f7cc-b0a2fb7f2754@moene.org> <20200209205511.GA63077@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> User-Agent: Evolution 3.32.5 (3.32.5-1.fc30) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2020-02/txt/msg00506.txt.bz2 On Sun, 2020-02-09 at 12:55 -0800, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Sun, Feb 09, 2020 at 09:15:46PM +0100, Toon Moene wrote: > > On 2/6/20 9:01 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > > > > > PR analyzer/93405 reports an ICE when attempting to use > > > -fanalyzer on > > > certain gfortran code. The second patch in this kit fixes that, > > > but > > > in the meantime I need somewhere to put regression tests for > > > -fanalyzer > > > with gfortran. > > > > > > This patch adds a gfortran.dg/analyzer subdirectory with an > > > analyzer.exp, > > > setting DEFAULT_FFLAGS on the tests run within it. > > > > I have seen no objections against this proposal, so please go > > ahead. > > > > Perhaps, there are no objections because the people who contribute > patches and provide reviews for gfortran have twindled to 1 or 2 > people > with sporadic available time. Did you actually review the proposed > changes? If not, how can you rubber stamp this commit? You have a > total of 12 ChangeLog entries over 18 years with the last occurring > in > 2011, and I do not recall you ever reviewing a patch. FWIW Toon reported in BZ that patch 2 in the kit fixed the ICE he had reported, and I asked there if he was able to review this patch, which is what led to his email. I'm sorry if I overstepped the mark here. > Finally, trunk > is in stage 4 (regression fixes & docs only). This does not look > like > either. Indeed. The analyzer is a new feature in GCC 10. I'm hoping some latitude can be granted here given it's new (and hence all of its ICEs are, strictly speaking, not regressions), and this is about adding test coverage for fixing them. > If I bootstrap gcc with fortran > > % mkdir obj > % ../gcc/configure --prefix=$HOME/work --enable-languages=c,fortran \ > --enable-bootstrap --enable-checking=yes > % gmake bootstrap > > and then do > > % cd gcc > % gmake check-fortran > > are these analyzer testcases built/executed? That's the intent of the patch, yes (the cases are marked with dg-do compile, so "built", at least, if not "executed"). Note that it's possible to disable the analyzer at configure-time via -fdisable-analyzer; the analyzer.exp checks for this via check_effective_target_analyzer. > Do all architectures > that support gfortran also support the analyzer infrastructure? I believe so, yes; I've fixed bugs on e.g. powerpc-ibm-aix7.2.0.0 since merging (and if not, the check_effective_target_analyzer ought to immediately reject running the tests). That said, I've only verified these testcases on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu so far. An alternative would be to split patch 2, committing the ICE fix to the analyzer, and leaving the test coverage to next stage 1. Thoughts? Thanks Dave