* Re: testsuite: missing or wrong dg-* directives?
[not found] ` <50F1CF62.4020901@sfr.fr>
@ 2013-01-13 20:30 ` Harald Anlauf
2013-01-13 23:11 ` Manfred Schwarb
2013-01-14 14:05 ` Mikael Morin
0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Harald Anlauf @ 2013-01-13 20:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mikael Morin; +Cc: fortran, gcc-patches
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1703 bytes --]
On 01/12/13 22:02, Mikael Morin wrote:
> Le 08/01/2013 22:32, Harald Anlauf a écrit :
>> On 12/28/12 21:49, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> is there a default directive that is assumed when the testsuite is run?
>>>
>>> Running an "fgrep -L" on the fortran testsuite, I found several files
>>> that are missing either dg-do compile or run.
>>>
>>> I also found a funny typo in gomp/appendix-a/a.11.2.f90
>>> ! { do-do compile }
>>
>> find gfortran.dg -name "*.[fF]90" -o -name "*.[fF]" | \
>> xargs fgrep -w -L 'dg-do' | \
>> xargs head -1 -v
>>
>> and manual inspection of the resulting output results in:
>>
>> - Typos
>>
> [...]
>>
>> - Possibly missing { dg-do run }
>>
> [...]
>
> Mind sending patch and changelog to @gcc-patches ?
>
Here we go. No failures, but additional passes because of the dg-do
run's. Somebody please take care of it?
Harald
2013-01-13 Harald Anlauf <anlauf@gmx.de>
* gfortran.dg/aint_anint_1.f90: Add dg-do run.
* gfortran.dg/bounds_check_4.f90: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/inquire_10.f90: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/minloc_3.f90: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/minlocval_3.f90: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/module_double_reuse.f90: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/mvbits_1.f90: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/oldstyle_1.f90: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/pr20163-2.f: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/save_1.f90: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/scan_1.f90: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/select_char_1.f90: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/shape_4.f90: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/coarray_29_2.f90: Fix dg-do directive.
* gfortran.dg/function_optimize_10.f90: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/gomp/appendix-a/a.11.2.f90: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/used_types_17.f90: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/used_types_18.f90: Likewise.
[-- Attachment #2: testsuite-gfortran.diff --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 6749 bytes --]
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/oldstyle_1.f90
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/oldstyle_1.f90 (revision 195136)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/oldstyle_1.f90 (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+! { dg-do run }
integer i, j /1/, g/2/, h ! { dg-warning "" "" }
integer k, l(3) /2*2,1/ ! { dg-warning "" "" }
real pi /3.1416/, e ! { dg-warning "" "" }
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/scan_1.f90
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/scan_1.f90 (revision 195136)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/scan_1.f90 (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+! { dg-do run }
program b
integer w
character(len=2) s, t
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/aint_anint_1.f90
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/aint_anint_1.f90 (revision 195136)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/aint_anint_1.f90 (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+! { dg-do run }
program aint_anint_1
implicit none
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/gomp/appendix-a/a.11.2.f90
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/gomp/appendix-a/a.11.2.f90 (revision 195136)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/gomp/appendix-a/a.11.2.f90 (working copy)
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-! { do-do compile }
+! { dg-do compile }
SUBROUTINE A11_2(AA, BB, CC, DD, EE, FF, N)
INTEGER N
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bounds_check_4.f90
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bounds_check_4.f90 (revision 195136)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bounds_check_4.f90 (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+! { dg-do run }
subroutine foo(n,x)
implicit none
integer, intent(in) :: n
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/save_1.f90
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/save_1.f90 (revision 195136)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/save_1.f90 (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+! { dg-do run }
! { dg-options "-O2 -fno-automatic" }
subroutine foo (b)
logical b
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/coarray_29_2.f90
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/coarray_29_2.f90 (revision 195136)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/coarray_29_2.f90 (working copy)
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-! { dg-compile }
+! { dg-do compile }
! { dg-options "-fcoarray=single" }
! Requires that coarray_29.f90 has been compiled before
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr20163-2.f
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr20163-2.f (revision 195136)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr20163-2.f (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+! { dg-do run }
open(10,status="foo",err=100) ! { dg-warning "STATUS specifier in OPEN statement .* has invalid value" }
call abort
100 continue
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/minloc_3.f90
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/minloc_3.f90 (revision 195136)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/minloc_3.f90 (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+! { dg-do run }
real :: a(30), m
real, allocatable :: c(:)
integer :: e(30), n, ia(1)
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/used_types_18.f90
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/used_types_18.f90 (revision 195136)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/used_types_18.f90 (working copy)
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-! { dg do-compile }
+! { dg-do compile }
! { dg-options "-std=f2003" }
!
! Fortran 2003 allowes TYPE without components
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/select_char_1.f90
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/select_char_1.f90 (revision 195136)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/select_char_1.f90 (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+! { dg-do run }
integer function char_select (s)
character(len=*), intent(in) :: s
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/minlocval_3.f90
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/minlocval_3.f90 (revision 195136)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/minlocval_3.f90 (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+! { dg-do run }
real :: a(30), b(10, 10), m
real, allocatable :: c(:), d(:, :)
integer :: e(30), f(10, 10), n
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/function_optimize_10.f90
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/function_optimize_10.f90 (revision 195136)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/function_optimize_10.f90 (working copy)
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-! { do-do run }
+! { dg-do run }
! PR 51858 - this used to generate wrong code.
! Original test case by Don Simons.
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/inquire_10.f90
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/inquire_10.f90 (revision 195136)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/inquire_10.f90 (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+! { dg-do run }
character(len=800) :: cwd
integer :: unit
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/module_double_reuse.f90
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/module_double_reuse.f90 (revision 195136)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/module_double_reuse.f90 (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+! { dg-do run }
! Test of fix for PR18878
!
! Based on example in PR by Steve Kargl
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/mvbits_1.f90
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/mvbits_1.f90 (revision 195136)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/mvbits_1.f90 (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+! { dg-do run }
! PR 25577
! MVBITS didn't work correctly for integer types wider than a C int
! The testcase is based on the one Dale Ranta posted in the bug report
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/shape_4.f90
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/shape_4.f90 (revision 195136)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/shape_4.f90 (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+! { dg-do run }
! PR 35001 - we need to return 0 for the shapes of
! negative extents. Test case adapted from Tobias Burnus.
program main
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/used_types_17.f90
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/used_types_17.f90 (revision 195136)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/used_types_17.f90 (working copy)
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-! { dg do-compile }
+! { dg-do compile }
! Tests the fix for PR31630, in which the association of the argument
! of 'cmp' did not work.
!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: testsuite: missing or wrong dg-* directives?
2013-01-13 20:30 ` testsuite: missing or wrong dg-* directives? Harald Anlauf
@ 2013-01-13 23:11 ` Manfred Schwarb
2013-01-13 23:38 ` Manfred Schwarb
2013-01-14 22:16 ` Harald Anlauf
2013-01-14 14:05 ` Mikael Morin
1 sibling, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Manfred Schwarb @ 2013-01-13 23:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Harald Anlauf; +Cc: Mikael Morin, fortran, gcc-patches
Am 13.01.2013 21:30, schrieb Harald Anlauf:
> On 01/12/13 22:02, Mikael Morin wrote:
>> Le 08/01/2013 22:32, Harald Anlauf a écrit :
>>> On 12/28/12 21:49, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>>>> Hello all,
>>>>
>>>> is there a default directive that is assumed when the testsuite is run?
>>>>
>>>> Running an "fgrep -L" on the fortran testsuite, I found several files
>>>> that are missing either dg-do compile or run.
>>>>
>>>> I also found a funny typo in gomp/appendix-a/a.11.2.f90
>>>> ! { do-do compile }
>>>
There are several other oddities: d_g-final, braces have to be separated by spaces.
Not sure about the double braces in lto, I guess they act simply as single braces.
class_array_10.f03:! { dg-do compile}
coarray_lib_token_4.f90:! { d_g-final { scan-tree-dump-times "bar \\(&parm.\[0-9\]+, caf_token.\[0-9\]+, \\(\\(integer\\(kind=.\\) parm.\[0-9\]+.data - \\(integer\\(kind=.\\)\\) x.\[0-9\]+\\) \\+ caf_offset.\[0-9\]+\\);" 1 "original" } }
continuation_9.f90:! { dg-warning "not allowed by itself in line 3" "" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
continuation_9.f90:! { dg-warning "not allowed by itself in line 4" "" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
continuation_9.f90:! { dg-warning "not allowed by itself in line 5" "" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
extends_11.f03:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times " +recruit\\.service\\.education\\.person\\.ss =" 8 "original"} }
lto/20091016-1_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{-flto -g -fPIC -r -nostdlib} {-O -flto -g -fPIC -r -nostdlib}} }
lto/20100110-1_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{ -O1 -flto }} }
lto/pr41521_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{-g -flto} {-g -O -flto}} }
lto/pr46036_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{ -O -flto -ftree-vectorize }} }
lto/pr46629_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{ -O2 -flto -ftree-vectorize -march=x86-64 }} { target i?86-*-* x86_64-*-* } }
lto/pr46629_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{ -O2 -flto -ftree-vectorize }} }
lto/pr46911_0.f:! { dg-lto-options {{ -O2 -flto -g }} }
lto/pr47839_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{ -g -flto }} }
move_alloc_13.f90:! { dg-do run}
structure_constructor_11.f90:! { dg-do run}
tab_continuation.f:! { dg-warning "Nonconforming tab character in column 1 of line 10" "Nonconforming tab" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
tab_continuation.f:! { dg-warning "Nonconforming tab character in column 1 of line 11" "Nonconforming tab" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
tab_continuation.f:! { dg-warning "Nonconforming tab character in column 1 of line 8" "Nonconforming tab" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
tab_continuation.f:! { dg-warning "Nonconforming tab character in column 1 of line 9" "Nonconforming tab" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
vect/vect-2.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using versioning." 3 "vect" {target { vect_no_align || { { ! vector_alignment_reachable } && { ! vect_hw_misalign } } } } } }
vect/vect-3.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 "vect" { xfail { vect_no_align || {! vector_alignment_reachable}} } } }
vect/vect-3.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using versioning" 1 "vect" { target { {! vect_no_align} && { {! vector_alignment_reachable} && {! vect_hw_misalign} } } } } }
vect/vect-3.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 1 "vect" { xfail { { vect_no_align } || { ! vector_alignment_reachable} } } } }
vect/vect-3.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 2 "vect" { target { {! vect_no_align} && { {! vector_alignment_reachable} && {! vect_hw_misalign} } } } } }
vect/vect-4.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 "vect" { xfail { { vect_no_align } || {! vector_alignment_reachable} } } } }
vect/vect-4.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 1 "vect" { xfail { { vect_no_align } || {! vector_alignment_reachable} } } } }
vect/vect-4.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 2 "vect" { target { {! vector_alignment_reachable} && {! vect_hw_misalign} } } } }
vect/vect-5.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 "vect" { xfail { vect_no_align || {! vector_alignment_reachable} } } } }
vect/vect-5.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using versioning." 1 "vect" { target { {! vector_alignment_reachable} && {! vect_hw_misalign} } } } }
warning-directive-2.F90:! { dg-message "some warnings being treated as errors" "" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
cheers,
Manfred
>>> find gfortran.dg -name "*.[fF]90" -o -name "*.[fF]" | \
>>> xargs fgrep -w -L 'dg-do' | \
>>> xargs head -1 -v
>>>
>>> and manual inspection of the resulting output results in:
>>>
>>> - Typos
>>>
>> [...]
>>>
>>> - Possibly missing { dg-do run }
>>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Mind sending patch and changelog to @gcc-patches ?
>>
>
> Here we go. No failures, but additional passes because of the dg-do run's. Somebody please take care of it?
>
> Harald
>
>
> 2013-01-13 Harald Anlauf <anlauf@gmx.de>
>
> * gfortran.dg/aint_anint_1.f90: Add dg-do run.
> * gfortran.dg/bounds_check_4.f90: Likewise.
> * gfortran.dg/inquire_10.f90: Likewise.
> * gfortran.dg/minloc_3.f90: Likewise.
> * gfortran.dg/minlocval_3.f90: Likewise.
> * gfortran.dg/module_double_reuse.f90: Likewise.
> * gfortran.dg/mvbits_1.f90: Likewise.
> * gfortran.dg/oldstyle_1.f90: Likewise.
> * gfortran.dg/pr20163-2.f: Likewise.
> * gfortran.dg/save_1.f90: Likewise.
> * gfortran.dg/scan_1.f90: Likewise.
> * gfortran.dg/select_char_1.f90: Likewise.
> * gfortran.dg/shape_4.f90: Likewise.
> * gfortran.dg/coarray_29_2.f90: Fix dg-do directive.
> * gfortran.dg/function_optimize_10.f90: Likewise.
> * gfortran.dg/gomp/appendix-a/a.11.2.f90: Likewise.
> * gfortran.dg/used_types_17.f90: Likewise.
> * gfortran.dg/used_types_18.f90: Likewise.
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: testsuite: missing or wrong dg-* directives?
2013-01-13 23:11 ` Manfred Schwarb
@ 2013-01-13 23:38 ` Manfred Schwarb
2013-01-14 14:23 ` Mikael Morin
2013-01-14 22:16 ` Harald Anlauf
1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Manfred Schwarb @ 2013-01-13 23:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Harald Anlauf; +Cc: Mikael Morin, fortran, gcc-patches
Am 14.01.2013 00:10, schrieb Manfred Schwarb:
> Am 13.01.2013 21:30, schrieb Harald Anlauf:
>> On 01/12/13 22:02, Mikael Morin wrote:
>>> Le 08/01/2013 22:32, Harald Anlauf a écrit :
>>>> On 12/28/12 21:49, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>>
>>>>> is there a default directive that is assumed when the testsuite is run?
>>>>>
>>>>> Running an "fgrep -L" on the fortran testsuite, I found several files
>>>>> that are missing either dg-do compile or run.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also found a funny typo in gomp/appendix-a/a.11.2.f90
>>>>> ! { do-do compile }
>>>>
>
> There are several other oddities: d_g-final, braces have to be separated by spaces.
> Not sure about the double braces in lto, I guess they act simply as single braces.
>
Oh, and then there is the "dg-do run" hack (two spaces, see cray_pointers_2.f90).
I guess the other occurrences are not intended:
default_initialization_5.f90:! { dg-do run }
io_real_boz_3.f90:! { dg-do run }
io_real_boz_4.f90:! { dg-do run }
io_real_boz_5.f90:! { dg-do run }
> class_array_10.f03:! { dg-do compile}
> coarray_lib_token_4.f90:! { d_g-final { scan-tree-dump-times "bar \\(&parm.\[0-9\]+, caf_token.\[0-9\]+, \\(\\(integer\\(kind=.\\) parm.\[0-9\]+.data - \\(integer\\(kind=.\\)\\) x.\[0-9\]+\\) \\+ caf_offset.\[0-9\]+\\);" 1 "original" } }
> continuation_9.f90:! { dg-warning "not allowed by itself in line 3" "" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
> continuation_9.f90:! { dg-warning "not allowed by itself in line 4" "" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
> continuation_9.f90:! { dg-warning "not allowed by itself in line 5" "" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
> extends_11.f03:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times " +recruit\\.service\\.education\\.person\\.ss =" 8 "original"} }
> lto/20091016-1_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{-flto -g -fPIC -r -nostdlib} {-O -flto -g -fPIC -r -nostdlib}} }
> lto/20100110-1_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{ -O1 -flto }} }
> lto/pr41521_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{-g -flto} {-g -O -flto}} }
> lto/pr46036_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{ -O -flto -ftree-vectorize }} }
> lto/pr46629_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{ -O2 -flto -ftree-vectorize -march=x86-64 }} { target i?86-*-* x86_64-*-* } }
> lto/pr46629_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{ -O2 -flto -ftree-vectorize }} }
> lto/pr46911_0.f:! { dg-lto-options {{ -O2 -flto -g }} }
> lto/pr47839_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{ -g -flto }} }
> move_alloc_13.f90:! { dg-do run}
> structure_constructor_11.f90:! { dg-do run}
> tab_continuation.f:! { dg-warning "Nonconforming tab character in column 1 of line 10" "Nonconforming tab" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
> tab_continuation.f:! { dg-warning "Nonconforming tab character in column 1 of line 11" "Nonconforming tab" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
> tab_continuation.f:! { dg-warning "Nonconforming tab character in column 1 of line 8" "Nonconforming tab" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
> tab_continuation.f:! { dg-warning "Nonconforming tab character in column 1 of line 9" "Nonconforming tab" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
> vect/vect-2.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using versioning." 3 "vect" {target { vect_no_align || { { ! vector_alignment_reachable } && { ! vect_hw_misalign } } } } } }
> vect/vect-3.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 "vect" { xfail { vect_no_align || {! vector_alignment_reachable}} } } }
> vect/vect-3.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using versioning" 1 "vect" { target { {! vect_no_align} && { {! vector_alignment_reachable} && {! vect_hw_misalign} } } } } }
> vect/vect-3.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 1 "vect" { xfail { { vect_no_align } || { ! vector_alignment_reachable} } } } }
> vect/vect-3.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 2 "vect" { target { {! vect_no_align} && { {! vector_alignment_reachable} && {! vect_hw_misalign} } } } } }
> vect/vect-4.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 "vect" { xfail { { vect_no_align } || {! vector_alignment_reachable} } } } }
> vect/vect-4.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 1 "vect" { xfail { { vect_no_align } || {! vector_alignment_reachable} } } } }
> vect/vect-4.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 2 "vect" { target { {! vector_alignment_reachable} && {! vect_hw_misalign} } } } }
> vect/vect-5.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 "vect" { xfail { vect_no_align || {! vector_alignment_reachable} } } } }
> vect/vect-5.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using versioning." 1 "vect" { target { {! vector_alignment_reachable} && {! vect_hw_misalign} } } } }
> warning-directive-2.F90:! { dg-message "some warnings being treated as errors" "" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
>
>
> cheers,
> Manfred
>
>
>
>>>> find gfortran.dg -name "*.[fF]90" -o -name "*.[fF]" | \
>>>> xargs fgrep -w -L 'dg-do' | \
>>>> xargs head -1 -v
>>>>
>>>> and manual inspection of the resulting output results in:
>>>>
>>>> - Typos
>>>>
>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> - Possibly missing { dg-do run }
>>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Mind sending patch and changelog to @gcc-patches ?
>>>
>>
>> Here we go. No failures, but additional passes because of the dg-do run's. Somebody please take care of it?
>>
>> Harald
>>
>>
>> 2013-01-13 Harald Anlauf <anlauf@gmx.de>
>>
>> * gfortran.dg/aint_anint_1.f90: Add dg-do run.
>> * gfortran.dg/bounds_check_4.f90: Likewise.
>> * gfortran.dg/inquire_10.f90: Likewise.
>> * gfortran.dg/minloc_3.f90: Likewise.
>> * gfortran.dg/minlocval_3.f90: Likewise.
>> * gfortran.dg/module_double_reuse.f90: Likewise.
>> * gfortran.dg/mvbits_1.f90: Likewise.
>> * gfortran.dg/oldstyle_1.f90: Likewise.
>> * gfortran.dg/pr20163-2.f: Likewise.
>> * gfortran.dg/save_1.f90: Likewise.
>> * gfortran.dg/scan_1.f90: Likewise.
>> * gfortran.dg/select_char_1.f90: Likewise.
>> * gfortran.dg/shape_4.f90: Likewise.
>> * gfortran.dg/coarray_29_2.f90: Fix dg-do directive.
>> * gfortran.dg/function_optimize_10.f90: Likewise.
>> * gfortran.dg/gomp/appendix-a/a.11.2.f90: Likewise.
>> * gfortran.dg/used_types_17.f90: Likewise.
>> * gfortran.dg/used_types_18.f90: Likewise.
>>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: testsuite: missing or wrong dg-* directives?
2013-01-13 20:30 ` testsuite: missing or wrong dg-* directives? Harald Anlauf
2013-01-13 23:11 ` Manfred Schwarb
@ 2013-01-14 14:05 ` Mikael Morin
1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Mikael Morin @ 2013-01-14 14:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Harald Anlauf; +Cc: fortran, gcc-patches
Le 13/01/2013 21:30, Harald Anlauf a écrit :
> On 01/12/13 22:02, Mikael Morin wrote:
>> Le 08/01/2013 22:32, Harald Anlauf a écrit :
>>> On 12/28/12 21:49, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>>>> Hello all,
>>>>
>>>> is there a default directive that is assumed when the testsuite is run?
>>>>
>>>> Running an "fgrep -L" on the fortran testsuite, I found several files
>>>> that are missing either dg-do compile or run.
>>>>
>>>> I also found a funny typo in gomp/appendix-a/a.11.2.f90
>>>> ! { do-do compile }
>>>
>>> find gfortran.dg -name "*.[fF]90" -o -name "*.[fF]" | \
>>> xargs fgrep -w -L 'dg-do' | \
>>> xargs head -1 -v
>>>
>>> and manual inspection of the resulting output results in:
>>>
>>> - Typos
>>>
>> [...]
>>>
>>> - Possibly missing { dg-do run }
>>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Mind sending patch and changelog to @gcc-patches ?
>>
>
> Here we go. No failures, but additional passes because of the dg-do
> run's. Somebody please take care of it?
>
Thanks. Committed as revision 195146.
Mikael
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: testsuite: missing or wrong dg-* directives?
2013-01-13 23:38 ` Manfred Schwarb
@ 2013-01-14 14:23 ` Mikael Morin
2013-01-14 19:49 ` Mike Stump
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Mikael Morin @ 2013-01-14 14:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Manfred Schwarb; +Cc: Harald Anlauf, fortran, gcc-patches
Le 14/01/2013 00:37, Manfred Schwarb a écrit :
> Am 14.01.2013 00:10, schrieb Manfred Schwarb:
>>
>> There are several other oddities: d_g-final, braces have to be
>> separated by spaces.
Want to send a patch?
>> Not sure about the double braces in lto, I guess they act simply as
>> single braces.
I don't know, you may ask a testsuite maintainer, or the author. It is
unlikely though that the author made a typo at the opening brace _and_
at the closing one.
Mikael
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: testsuite: missing or wrong dg-* directives?
2013-01-14 14:23 ` Mikael Morin
@ 2013-01-14 19:49 ` Mike Stump
2013-01-15 21:47 ` Manfred Schwarb
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Mike Stump @ 2013-01-14 19:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mikael Morin; +Cc: Manfred Schwarb, Harald Anlauf, fortran, gcc-patches
On Jan 14, 2013, at 6:23 AM, Mikael Morin <mikael.morin@sfr.fr> wrote:
> Le 14/01/2013 00:37, Manfred Schwarb a écrit :
>> Am 14.01.2013 00:10, schrieb Manfred Schwarb:
>>>
>>> There are several other oddities: d_g-final, braces have to be
>>> separated by spaces.
>
> Want to send a patch?
>
>>> Not sure about the double braces in lto, I guess they act simply as
>>> single braces.
>
> I don't know, you may ask a testsuite maintainer, or the author. It is unlikely though that the author made a typo at the opening brace _and_ at the closing one.
Yeah… A quick check of the _documentation_ (a terrible thing to waste):
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.5.4/gccint/LTO-Testing.html
{ dg-lto-options { { options } [{ options }] } [{ target selector }]}
This directive provides a list of one or more sets of compiler options to override LTO_OPTIONS. Each test will be compiled and run with each of these sets of options.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: testsuite: missing or wrong dg-* directives?
2013-01-13 23:11 ` Manfred Schwarb
2013-01-13 23:38 ` Manfred Schwarb
@ 2013-01-14 22:16 ` Harald Anlauf
2013-01-15 21:22 ` Mikael Morin
2013-01-15 21:30 ` Manfred Schwarb
1 sibling, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Harald Anlauf @ 2013-01-14 22:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Manfred Schwarb; +Cc: Mikael Morin, fortran, gcc-patches
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5587 bytes --]
On 01/14/13 00:10, Manfred Schwarb wrote:
> Am 13.01.2013 21:30, schrieb Harald Anlauf:
>> On 01/12/13 22:02, Mikael Morin wrote:
>>> Le 08/01/2013 22:32, Harald Anlauf a écrit :
>>>> On 12/28/12 21:49, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>>
>>>>> is there a default directive that is assumed when the testsuite is
>>>>> run?
>>>>>
>>>>> Running an "fgrep -L" on the fortran testsuite, I found several files
>>>>> that are missing either dg-do compile or run.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also found a funny typo in gomp/appendix-a/a.11.2.f90
>>>>> ! { do-do compile }
>>>>
>
> There are several other oddities: d_g-final, braces have to be separated
> by spaces.
Looking at the generated dump, tt appears that the occurence of
"d_g-final" is just some left-over junk and can be removed safely,
see below. Maybe the author (Tobias B.) knows?
> Not sure about the double braces in lto, I guess they act simply as
> single braces.
>
> class_array_10.f03:! { dg-do compile}
> coarray_lib_token_4.f90:! { d_g-final { scan-tree-dump-times "bar
> \\(&parm.\[0-9\]+, caf_token.\[0-9\]+, \\(\\(integer\\(kind=.\\)
> parm.\[0-9\]+.data - \\(integer\\(kind=.\\)\\) x.\[0-9\]+\\) \\+
> caf_offset.\[0-9\]+\\);" 1 "original" } }
> continuation_9.f90:! { dg-warning "not allowed by itself in line 3" ""
> {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
> continuation_9.f90:! { dg-warning "not allowed by itself in line 4" ""
> {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
> continuation_9.f90:! { dg-warning "not allowed by itself in line 5" ""
> {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
> extends_11.f03:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "
> +recruit\\.service\\.education\\.person\\.ss =" 8 "original"} }
> lto/20091016-1_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{-flto -g -fPIC -r -nostdlib}
> {-O -flto -g -fPIC -r -nostdlib}} }
> lto/20100110-1_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{ -O1 -flto }} }
> lto/pr41521_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{-g -flto} {-g -O -flto}} }
> lto/pr46036_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{ -O -flto -ftree-vectorize }} }
> lto/pr46629_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{ -O2 -flto -ftree-vectorize
> -march=x86-64 }} { target i?86-*-* x86_64-*-* } }
> lto/pr46629_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{ -O2 -flto -ftree-vectorize }} }
> lto/pr46911_0.f:! { dg-lto-options {{ -O2 -flto -g }} }
> lto/pr47839_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{ -g -flto }} }
> move_alloc_13.f90:! { dg-do run}
> structure_constructor_11.f90:! { dg-do run}
> tab_continuation.f:! { dg-warning "Nonconforming tab character in column
> 1 of line 10" "Nonconforming tab" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
> tab_continuation.f:! { dg-warning "Nonconforming tab character in column
> 1 of line 11" "Nonconforming tab" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
> tab_continuation.f:! { dg-warning "Nonconforming tab character in column
> 1 of line 8" "Nonconforming tab" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
> tab_continuation.f:! { dg-warning "Nonconforming tab character in column
> 1 of line 9" "Nonconforming tab" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
> vect/vect-2.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access
> forced using versioning." 3 "vect" {target { vect_no_align || { { !
> vector_alignment_reachable } && { ! vect_hw_misalign } } } } } }
> vect/vect-3.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access
> forced using peeling" 1 "vect" { xfail { vect_no_align || {!
> vector_alignment_reachable}} } } }
> vect/vect-3.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access
> forced using versioning" 1 "vect" { target { {! vect_no_align} && { {!
> vector_alignment_reachable} && {! vect_hw_misalign} } } } } }
> vect/vect-3.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an
> unaligned access" 1 "vect" { xfail { { vect_no_align } || { !
> vector_alignment_reachable} } } } }
> vect/vect-3.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an
> unaligned access" 2 "vect" { target { {! vect_no_align} && { {!
> vector_alignment_reachable} && {! vect_hw_misalign} } } } } }
> vect/vect-4.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access
> forced using peeling" 1 "vect" { xfail { { vect_no_align } || {!
> vector_alignment_reachable} } } } }
> vect/vect-4.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an
> unaligned access" 1 "vect" { xfail { { vect_no_align } || {!
> vector_alignment_reachable} } } } }
> vect/vect-4.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an
> unaligned access" 2 "vect" { target { {! vector_alignment_reachable} &&
> {! vect_hw_misalign} } } } }
> vect/vect-5.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access
> forced using peeling" 1 "vect" { xfail { vect_no_align || {!
> vector_alignment_reachable} } } } }
> vect/vect-5.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access
> forced using versioning." 1 "vect" { target { {!
> vector_alignment_reachable} && {! vect_hw_misalign} } } } }
> warning-directive-2.F90:! { dg-message "some warnings being treated as
> errors" "" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
>
>
> cheers,
> Manfred
>
Attached there is a partial patch for the obvious parts, plus other
missed cases (missing options). No failures, just a few more passes
from the fixed dg-do run's.
2013-01-14 Manfred Schwarb <manfred99@gmx.ch>
Harald Anlauf <anlauf@gmx.de>
* gfortran.dg/bounds_check_4.f90: Add dg-options "-fbounds-check".
* gfortran.dg/bounds_check_5.f90: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/class_array_10.f03: Fix syntax of dg-directive.
* gfortran.dg/continuation_9.f90: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/move_alloc_13.f90: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/structure_constructor_11.f90: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/tab_continuation.f: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/warning-directive-2.F90: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/coarray_lib_token_4.f90: Remove misspelled directive.
Harald
[-- Attachment #2: gfortran.dg.diff --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 5921 bytes --]
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/tab_continuation.f
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/tab_continuation.f (revision 195171)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/tab_continuation.f (working copy)
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
INTEGER NAXIS(0:MAPMAX,LUMIN:LUMAX),NAXIS1(0:MAPMAX,LUMIN:LUMAX),
1NAXIS2(0:MAPMAX,LUMIN:LUMAX),NAXIS3(0:MAPMAX,LUMIN:LUMAX)
end
-! { dg-warning "Nonconforming tab character in column 1 of line 8" "Nonconforming tab" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
-! { dg-warning "Nonconforming tab character in column 1 of line 9" "Nonconforming tab" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
-! { dg-warning "Nonconforming tab character in column 1 of line 10" "Nonconforming tab" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
-! { dg-warning "Nonconforming tab character in column 1 of line 11" "Nonconforming tab" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
+! { dg-warning "Nonconforming tab character in column 1 of line 8" "Nonconforming tab" { target *-*-* } 0 }
+! { dg-warning "Nonconforming tab character in column 1 of line 9" "Nonconforming tab" { target *-*-* } 0 }
+! { dg-warning "Nonconforming tab character in column 1 of line 10" "Nonconforming tab" { target *-*-* } 0 }
+! { dg-warning "Nonconforming tab character in column 1 of line 11" "Nonconforming tab" { target *-*-* } 0 }
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bounds_check_4.f90
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bounds_check_4.f90 (revision 195171)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bounds_check_4.f90 (working copy)
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
! { dg-do run }
+! { dg-options "-fbounds-check" }
subroutine foo(n,x)
implicit none
integer, intent(in) :: n
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/class_array_10.f03
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/class_array_10.f03 (revision 195171)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/class_array_10.f03 (working copy)
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-! { dg-do compile}
+! { dg-do compile }
!
! PR fortran/41587
! This program was leading to an ICE related to class allocatable arrays
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/continuation_9.f90
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/continuation_9.f90 (revision 195171)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/continuation_9.f90 (working copy)
@@ -4,6 +4,6 @@
&
&
end
-! { dg-warning "not allowed by itself in line 3" "" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
-! { dg-warning "not allowed by itself in line 4" "" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
-! { dg-warning "not allowed by itself in line 5" "" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
+! { dg-warning "not allowed by itself in line 3" "" { target *-*-* } 0 }
+! { dg-warning "not allowed by itself in line 4" "" { target *-*-* } 0 }
+! { dg-warning "not allowed by itself in line 5" "" { target *-*-* } 0 }
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/coarray_lib_token_4.f90
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/coarray_lib_token_4.f90 (revision 195171)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/coarray_lib_token_4.f90 (working copy)
@@ -40,7 +40,6 @@
! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "foo \\(struct array2_integer\\(kind=4\\) & restrict x, struct array2_integer\\(kind=4\\) & restrict y, integer\\(kind=4\\) & restrict test, void . restrict caf_token.\[0-9\]+, integer\\(kind=.\\) caf_offset.\[0-9\]+, void . restrict caf_token.\[0-9\]+, integer\\(kind=.\\) caf_offset.\[0-9\]+\\)" 1 "original" } }
!
! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "bar \\(&parm.\[0-9\]+, caf_token.\[0-9\]+, \\(\\(integer\\(kind=.\\)\\) parm.\[0-9\]+.data - \\(integer\\(kind=.\\)\\) x.\[0-9\]+\\) \\+ caf_offset.\[0-9\]+\\);" 1 "original" } }
-! { d_g-final { scan-tree-dump-times "bar \\(&parm.\[0-9\]+, caf_token.\[0-9\]+, \\(\\(integer\\(kind=.\\) parm.\[0-9\]+.data - \\(integer\\(kind=.\\)\\) x.\[0-9\]+\\) \\+ caf_offset.\[0-9\]+\\);" 1 "original" } }
!
! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "expl \\(\\(integer\\(kind=4\\).0:. .\\) parm.\[0-9\]+.data, caf_token.\[0-9\]+, \\(\\(integer\\(kind=.\\)\\) parm.\[0-9\]+.data - \\(\\(integer\\(kind=.\\)\\) y.\[0-9\]+\\) \\+ caf_offset.\[0-9\]+\\);" 0 "original" } }
!
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/warning-directive-2.F90
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/warning-directive-2.F90 (revision 195171)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/warning-directive-2.F90 (working copy)
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
! { dg-do preprocess }
! { dg-options "-std=f95 -fdiagnostics-show-option -Werror=cpp" }
-! { dg-message "some warnings being treated as errors" "" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
+! { dg-message "some warnings being treated as errors" "" { target *-*-* } 0 }
#warning "Printed"
! { dg-error "\"Printed\" .-Werror=cpp." "" { target *-*-* } 4 }
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bounds_check_5.f90
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bounds_check_5.f90 (revision 195171)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bounds_check_5.f90 (working copy)
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
! { dg-do run }
+! { dg-options "-fbounds-check" }
! This tests the fix for PR30190, in which the array reference
! in the associated statement would cause a segfault.
!
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/move_alloc_13.f90
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/move_alloc_13.f90 (revision 195171)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/move_alloc_13.f90 (working copy)
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-! { dg-do run}
+! { dg-do run }
!
! PR fortran/51970
! PR fortran/51977
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/structure_constructor_11.f90
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/structure_constructor_11.f90 (revision 195171)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/structure_constructor_11.f90 (working copy)
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-! { dg-do run}
+! { dg-do run }
! { dg-options "-fdump-tree-original" }
!
! PR fortran/54603
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: testsuite: missing or wrong dg-* directives?
2013-01-14 22:16 ` Harald Anlauf
@ 2013-01-15 21:22 ` Mikael Morin
2013-01-15 21:30 ` Manfred Schwarb
1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Mikael Morin @ 2013-01-15 21:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Harald Anlauf; +Cc: Manfred Schwarb, fortran, gcc-patches
Le 14/01/2013 23:16, Harald Anlauf a écrit :
> Attached there is a partial patch for the obvious parts, plus other
> missed cases (missing options). No failures, just a few more passes
> from the fixed dg-do run's.
>
Thanks, applied as revision 195217.
Mikael
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: testsuite: missing or wrong dg-* directives?
2013-01-14 22:16 ` Harald Anlauf
2013-01-15 21:22 ` Mikael Morin
@ 2013-01-15 21:30 ` Manfred Schwarb
1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Manfred Schwarb @ 2013-01-15 21:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Harald Anlauf; +Cc: Mikael Morin, fortran, gcc-patches
>
> Attached there is a partial patch for the obvious parts, plus other
> missed cases (missing options). No failures, just a few more passes
> from the fixed dg-do run's.
>
> 2013-01-14 Manfred Schwarb <manfred99@gmx.ch>
> Harald Anlauf <anlauf@gmx.de>
>
> * gfortran.dg/bounds_check_4.f90: Add dg-options "-fbounds-check".
> * gfortran.dg/bounds_check_5.f90: Likewise.
> * gfortran.dg/class_array_10.f03: Fix syntax of dg-directive.
> * gfortran.dg/continuation_9.f90: Likewise.
> * gfortran.dg/move_alloc_13.f90: Likewise.
> * gfortran.dg/structure_constructor_11.f90: Likewise.
> * gfortran.dg/tab_continuation.f: Likewise.
> * gfortran.dg/warning-directive-2.F90: Likewise.
> * gfortran.dg/coarray_lib_token_4.f90: Remove misspelled directive.
>
Harald,
thanks for doing this. I'm not able to sign the famous paperwork,
so submitting patches myself is not really productive.
Manfred
> Harald
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: testsuite: missing or wrong dg-* directives?
2013-01-14 19:49 ` Mike Stump
@ 2013-01-15 21:47 ` Manfred Schwarb
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Manfred Schwarb @ 2013-01-15 21:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mike Stump; +Cc: Mikael Morin, Harald Anlauf, fortran, gcc-patches
Am 14.01.2013 20:49, schrieb Mike Stump:
> On Jan 14, 2013, at 6:23 AM, Mikael Morin <mikael.morin@sfr.fr> wrote:
>> Le 14/01/2013 00:37, Manfred Schwarb a écrit :
>>> Am 14.01.2013 00:10, schrieb Manfred Schwarb:
>>>>
>>>> There are several other oddities: d_g-final, braces have to be
>>>> separated by spaces.
>>
>> Want to send a patch?
>>
>>>> Not sure about the double braces in lto, I guess they act simply as
>>>> single braces.
>>
>> I don't know, you may ask a testsuite maintainer, or the author. It is unlikely though that the author made a typo at the opening brace _and_ at the closing one.
>
> YeahÂ… A quick check of the _documentation_ (a terrible thing to waste):
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.5.4/gccint/LTO-Testing.html
Sorry, I just realized that my sentence was not really clear. I was not talking
about removing superfluous braces, but about adding spaces between these double braces.
dejagnu seems to be very sensitive concerning missing spaces, e.g.
"{ dg-do run}" does silently nothing, it only works if you write it as
"{ dg-do run }".
Manfred
>
> { dg-lto-options { { options } [{ options }] } [{ target selector }]}
> This directive provides a list of one or more sets of compiler options to override LTO_OPTIONS. Each test will be compiled and run with each of these sets of options.
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-01-15 21:47 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <50DE05CF.4070900@gmx.de>
[not found] ` <50EC9065.7000801@gmx.de>
[not found] ` <50F1CF62.4020901@sfr.fr>
2013-01-13 20:30 ` testsuite: missing or wrong dg-* directives? Harald Anlauf
2013-01-13 23:11 ` Manfred Schwarb
2013-01-13 23:38 ` Manfred Schwarb
2013-01-14 14:23 ` Mikael Morin
2013-01-14 19:49 ` Mike Stump
2013-01-15 21:47 ` Manfred Schwarb
2013-01-14 22:16 ` Harald Anlauf
2013-01-15 21:22 ` Mikael Morin
2013-01-15 21:30 ` Manfred Schwarb
2013-01-14 14:05 ` Mikael Morin
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).