Re: Committed: fd_truncate test-cases updated for recent libgfortran changes

[Hans-Peter Nilsson <hans-peter.nilsson@axis.com>]

> Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 19:36:47 +0300
> From: Janne Blomqvist <blomqvist.janne@gmail.com>

> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 00:52, Hans-Peter Nilsson
> <hans-peter.nilsson@axis.com> wrote:
> > This time, it happened in 173155:173168.
> >
> > Usually, there's also a brief question whether all changes were
> > intended, or perhaps that some of the regressing tests (here:
> > gfortran.dg/fmt_cache_1.f and gfortran.dg/ftell_3.f90) were not
> > really supposed to have raw_truncate called.  So, should they?
> 
> I don't know; If you cared to bisect, that would help.

There's nothing to bisect, there was just one big libgfortran
change in the range I mentioned, one you should already know
about. :)

> These issues
> tend to fly under the radar as most developers have ftruncate()
> present. Maybe some script hack running the testsuite under strace()
> and cross-checking for the presence of "target fd_truncate" might do
> on "normal" targets, but I haven't looked into it.

I wouldn't say that this needs any priority, but I like the idea
of a portion of an I/O-library checking regression in the number
of syscalls using strace (pruning the startup and finish for
obvious reasons).

> > Two of the test-cases, gfortran.dg/endfile_3.f90 and
> > gfortran.dg/endfile_4.f90 actually pass, which seems wrong, as
> > raw_truncate after emitting the error message returns an error
> > indication (so, the test-program should abort or return an error
> > AFAICT).  Perhaps due to lack of error handling in the
> > call-chain to raw_truncate?

Ignore that, I missed the dg-shouldfail:s.  Or at most note that
dg-shouldfail should be improved to actually look for its
argument in order to distinguish between the expected failure
message and others.  Right now it "accepts" any failure.

brgds, H-P