[Fortran, committed] Fix bugs in the dg-* directives in the test suite (was: testsuite oddities)

[Fortran, committed] Fix bugs in the dg-* directives in the test suite (was: testsuite oddities)

[Tobias Burnus]

Manfred Schwarb wrote:
> I did some tests for unbalanced curly braces in the gfortran testsuite
> and got quite some output, see attached patch.
>
> additionally,
> - corrected "dg-do  run" issues (double space)

I think some of the test cases might to it on purpose: "dg-do  run" 
causes the test case to run only once while "dg-do run" runs multiple 
times with different options. If the testcase is supposed to test the 
run-time library, calling it multiple times is pointless. Admittedly, 
using two spaces is an ugly hack, but creating a "dg-do run-single" is 
difficult. Those test cases are rather quick, hence, running multiple 
times, keeping the double space version or doing the latter but adding a 
comment all work.

> - dg-flags should be dg-options
> - string adjustments needed after fixing curly braces

Thanks for the patches! Committed as http://gcc.gnu.org/r199636

Tobias

Re: [Fortran, committed] Fix bugs in the dg-* directives in the test suite (was: testsuite oddities)

[Mike Stump]

On Jun 4, 2013, at 12:37 AM, Tobias Burnus <burnus@net-b.de> wrote:
> I think some of the test cases might to it on purpose: "dg-do  run" causes the test case to run only once while "dg-do run" runs multiple times with different options. If the testcase is supposed to test the run-time library, calling it multiple times is pointless. Admittedly, using two spaces is an ugly hack,

:-o, The things we never knew.  Anyway, use of hacks like this, should result in the hack being documented.  At least then we can find them with find-grep in emacs, and know about it.  I'm not in favor of using hacks like this, I don't endorse it.  If someone wants to approve such a patch in their part of the test suite, that's fine with me.

> but creating a "dg-do run-single" is difficult.

Well, my first question is, why can't test cases that run in a context that means, run multiple times, be moved from that context, to a context that means, run once?  Seems straight forward.  In the C test suite, that would be moving from \*torture to \* (other than torture), usually.  If fortran doesn't have a run once context, seems reasonable to create one, I'd recommend doing this once there are 20 or more test cases that use the hack.

Re: [Fortran, committed] Fix bugs in the dg-* directives in the test suite (was: testsuite oddities)

[Mike Stump]

[ sorry for the dup ]

On Jun 4, 2013, at 12:37 AM, Tobias Burnus <burnus@net-b.de> wrote:
> I think some of the test cases might to it on purpose: "dg-do  run" causes the test case to run only once while "dg-do run" runs multiple times with different options. If the testcase is supposed to test the run-time library, calling it multiple times is pointless. Admittedly, using two spaces is an ugly hack,

:-o, The things we never knew.  Anyway, use of hacks like this, should result in the hack being documented.  At least then we can find them with find-grep in emacs, and know about it.  I'm not in favor of using hacks like this, I don't endorse it.  If someone wants to approve such a patch in their part of the test suite, that's fine with me.

> but creating a "dg-do run-single" is difficult.

Well, my first question is, why can't test cases that run in a context that means, run multiple times, be moved from that context, to a context that means, run once?  Seems straight forward.  In the C test suite, that would be moving from \*torture to \* (other than torture), usually.  If fortran doesn't have a run once context, seems reasonable to create one, I'd recommend doing this once there are 20 or more test cases that use the hack.

Re: [Fortran, committed] Fix bugs in the dg-* directives in the test suite

[Tobias Burnus]

Mike Stump wrote:
> :-o, The things we never knew. Anyway, use of hacks like this, should 
> result in the hack being documented. At least then we can find them 
> with find-grep in emacs, and know about it. I'm not in favor of using 
> hacks like this, I don't endorse it. If someone wants to approve such 
> a patch in their part of the test suite, that's fine with me.

I think only cray_pointers_2.f90 strictly requires it as it takes quite 
long and, thus, caused problems on one system. See: 
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2011-01/msg00089.html

>> but creating a "dg-do run-single" is difficult.
> [...] If fortran doesn't have a run once context, seems reasonable to create one, I'd recommend doing this once there are 20 or more test cases that use the hack.

Maybe one should create a run-once context - to save some testing time. 
However, the number of test cases with "dg-do  run" is a low one digit 
number.

(Admittedly, I have no idea why the default gfortran.dg/dg.exp runs 
multiple times - and also not what's the exact purpose of 
gfortran.fortran-torture.)

Tobias