From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24882 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2013 14:05:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 24869 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Jan 2013 14:05:40 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp22.services.sfr.fr (HELO smtp22.services.sfr.fr) (93.17.128.13) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:05:26 +0000 Received: from filter.sfr.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by msfrf2214.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id C07907000101; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 15:05:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.1.58] (150.15.72.86.rev.sfr.net [86.72.15.150]) by msfrf2214.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 6277470000EC; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 15:05:25 +0100 (CET) X-SFR-UUID: 20130114140525403.6277470000EC@msfrf2214.sfr.fr Message-ID: <50F410A4.1070504@sfr.fr> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:05:00 -0000 From: Mikael Morin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.11) Gecko/20121222 Thunderbird/10.0.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Harald Anlauf CC: fortran@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: testsuite: missing or wrong dg-* directives? References: <50DE05CF.4070900@gmx.de> <50EC9065.7000801@gmx.de> <50F1CF62.4020901@sfr.fr> <50F31967.4050003@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <50F31967.4050003@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2013-01/txt/msg00679.txt.bz2 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