* [committed] Make test names unique for a couple of goacc tests
@ 2021-09-19 17:35 Jeff Law
2021-09-22 11:03 ` Thomas Schwinge
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Law @ 2021-09-19 17:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: GCC Patches
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 615 bytes --]
A couple of goacc tests do not have unique names. This causes problems
for the test comparison script when one of the test passes and the other
fails -- in this scenario the test comparison script claims there is a
regression.
This slipped through for a while because I had turned off x86_64 testing
(others test it regularly and I was revamping the tester's hardware
requirements). Now that I've acquired more x86_64 resources and turned
on native x86 testing again, it's been flagged.
This patch just adds a numeric suffix to the TODO string to disambiguate
them.
Committed to the trunk,
Jeff
[-- Attachment #2: test.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 6742 bytes --]
commit f75b237254f32d5be32c9d9610983b777abea633
Author: Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>
Date: Sun Sep 19 13:31:32 2021 -0400
[committed] Make test names unique for a couple of goacc tests
gcc/testsuite
* gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90: Make test names
unique.
* gfortran.dg/goacc/routine-external-level-of-parallelism-2.f:
Likewise.
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90
index ed7e9ec6437..31f998dfc92 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90
@@ -39,9 +39,9 @@ contains
!$acc atomic write ! ... to force 'TREE_ADDRESSABLE'.
y = a
!$acc end parallel
- ! { dg-note {variable 'i' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
- ! { dg-note {variable 'j' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
- ! { dg-note {variable 'a' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
+ ! { dg-note {variable 'i' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO2" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
+ ! { dg-note {variable 'j' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO3" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
+ ! { dg-note {variable 'a' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO4" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
! { dg-note {variable 'C\.[0-9]+' declared in block potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'const_decl'} "TODO" { target *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
! { dg-note {variable 'D\.[0-9]+' declared in block isn't candidate for adjusting OpenACC privatization level: not addressable} "" { target *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
end subroutine f
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/routine-external-level-of-parallelism-2.f b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/routine-external-level-of-parallelism-2.f
index 04d507fef9a..949d571ee55 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/routine-external-level-of-parallelism-2.f
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/routine-external-level-of-parallelism-2.f
@@ -22,8 +22,8 @@
! { dg-warning "insufficient partitioning available to parallelize loop" "" { target *-*-* } .-1 }
do j = 1, n
call workerr (a, n) ! { dg-message "optimized: assigned OpenACC worker vector loop parallelism" }
-! { dg-bogus "note: routine 'workerr' declared here" "TODO" { xfail { ! offloading_enabled } } .-1 }
-! { dg-bogus "note: routine 'workerr_' declared here" "TODO" { xfail offloading_enabled } .-2 }
+! { dg-bogus "note: routine 'workerr' declared here" "TODO1" { xfail { ! offloading_enabled } } .-1 }
+! { dg-bogus "note: routine 'workerr_' declared here" "TODO2" { xfail offloading_enabled } .-2 }
end do
end do
!$acc end parallel loop
@@ -36,8 +36,8 @@
do j = 1, n
call gangr (a, n) ! { dg-message "optimized: assigned OpenACC worker vector loop parallelism" }
! { dg-error "routine call uses same OpenACC parallelism as containing loop" "" { target *-*-* } .-1 }
-! { dg-bogus "note: routine 'gangr' declared here" "TODO" { xfail { ! offloading_enabled } } .-2 }
-! { dg-bogus "note: routine 'gangr_' declared here" "TODO" { xfail offloading_enabled } .-3 }
+! { dg-bogus "note: routine 'gangr' declared here" "TODO1" { xfail { ! offloading_enabled } } .-2 }
+! { dg-bogus "note: routine 'gangr_' declared here" "TODO2" { xfail offloading_enabled } .-3 }
end do
end do
!$acc end parallel loop
@@ -162,8 +162,8 @@
!$acc parallel loop ! { dg-message "optimized: assigned OpenACC gang worker loop parallelism" }
do i = 1, n
call vectorr (a, n) ! { dg-message "optimized: assigned OpenACC vector loop parallelism" }
-! { dg-bogus "note: routine 'vectorr' declared here" "TODO" { xfail { ! offloading_enabled } } .-1 }
-! { dg-bogus "note: routine 'vectorr_' declared here" "TODO" { xfail offloading_enabled } .-2 }
+! { dg-bogus "note: routine 'vectorr' declared here" "TODO1" { xfail { ! offloading_enabled } } .-1 }
+! { dg-bogus "note: routine 'vectorr_' declared here" "TODO2" { xfail offloading_enabled } .-2 }
end do
!$acc end parallel loop
@@ -214,8 +214,8 @@
! { dg-warning "insufficient partitioning available to parallelize loop" "" { target *-*-* } .-1 }
do j = 1, n
a(i) = workerf (a, n) ! { dg-message "optimized: assigned OpenACC worker vector loop parallelism" }
-! { dg-bogus "note: routine 'workerf' declared here" "TODO" { xfail { ! offloading_enabled } } .-1 }
-! { dg-bogus "note: routine 'workerf_' declared here" "TODO" { xfail offloading_enabled } .-2 }
+! { dg-bogus "note: routine 'workerf' declared here" "TODO1" { xfail { ! offloading_enabled } } .-1 }
+! { dg-bogus "note: routine 'workerf_' declared here" "TODO2" { xfail offloading_enabled } .-2 }
end do
end do
!$acc end parallel loop
@@ -228,8 +228,8 @@
do j = 1, n
a(i) = gangf (a, n) ! { dg-message "optimized: assigned OpenACC worker vector loop parallelism" }
! { dg-error "routine call uses same OpenACC parallelism as containing loop" "" { target *-*-* } .-1 }
-! { dg-bogus "note: routine 'gangf' declared here" "TODO" { xfail { ! offloading_enabled } } .-2 }
-! { dg-bogus "note: routine 'gangf_' declared here" "TODO" { xfail offloading_enabled } .-3 }
+! { dg-bogus "note: routine 'gangf' declared here" "TODO1" { xfail { ! offloading_enabled } } .-2 }
+! { dg-bogus "note: routine 'gangf_' declared here" "TODO2" { xfail offloading_enabled } .-3 }
end do
end do
!$acc end parallel loop
@@ -354,8 +354,8 @@
!$acc parallel loop ! { dg-message "optimized: assigned OpenACC gang worker loop parallelism" }
do i = 1, n
a(i) = vectorf (a, n) ! { dg-message "optimized: assigned OpenACC vector loop parallelism" }
-! { dg-bogus "note: routine 'vectorf' declared here" "TODO" { xfail { ! offloading_enabled } } .-1 }
-! { dg-bogus "note: routine 'vectorf_' declared here" "TODO" { xfail offloading_enabled } .-2 }
+! { dg-bogus "note: routine 'vectorf' declared here" "TODO1" { xfail { ! offloading_enabled } } .-1 }
+! { dg-bogus "note: routine 'vectorf_' declared here" "TODO2" { xfail offloading_enabled } .-2 }
end do
!$acc end parallel loop
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [committed] Make test names unique for a couple of goacc tests
2021-09-19 17:35 [committed] Make test names unique for a couple of goacc tests Jeff Law
@ 2021-09-22 11:03 ` Thomas Schwinge
2021-09-30 6:42 ` [ping] Make sure that we get unique test names if several DejaGnu directives refer to the same line (was: [committed] Make test names unique for a couple of goacc tests) Thomas Schwinge
2021-12-02 21:30 ` [committed] Make test names unique for a couple of goacc tests Jeff Law
0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Schwinge @ 2021-09-22 11:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Law, gcc-patches
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3368 bytes --]
Hi!
On 2021-09-19T11:35:00-0600, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> A couple of goacc tests do not have unique names.
Thanks for fixing this up, and sorry, largely my "fault", I suppose. ;-|
> This causes problems
> for the test comparison script when one of the test passes and the other
> fails -- in this scenario the test comparison script claims there is a
> regression.
So I understand correctly that this is a problem not just for actual
mixed PASS vs. FAIL (which we'd like you to report anyway!) that appear
for the same line, but also for mixed PASS vs. XFAIL? (Because, the
latter appears to be what you're addressing with your commit here.)
> This slipped through for a while because I had turned off x86_64 testing
> (others test it regularly and I was revamping the tester's hardware
> requirements). Now that I've acquired more x86_64 resources and turned
> on native x86 testing again, it's been flagged.
(I don't follow that argument -- these test cases should be all generic?
Anyway, not important, I guess.)
> This patch just adds a numeric suffix to the TODO string to disambiguate
> them.
So, instead of doing this manually (always error-prone!), like you've...
> Committed to the trunk,
> commit f75b237254f32d5be32c9d9610983b777abea633
> Author: Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun Sep 19 13:31:32 2021 -0400
>
> [committed] Make test names unique for a couple of goacc tests
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90
> @@ -39,9 +39,9 @@ contains
> !$acc atomic write ! ... to force 'TREE_ADDRESSABLE'.
> y = a
> !$acc end parallel
> - ! { dg-note {variable 'i' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
> - ! { dg-note {variable 'j' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
> - ! { dg-note {variable 'a' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
> + ! { dg-note {variable 'i' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO2" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
> + ! { dg-note {variable 'j' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO3" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
> + ! { dg-note {variable 'a' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO4" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
... etc. (also similarly in a handful of earlier commits, if I remember
correctly), why don't we do that programmatically, like in the attached
"Make sure that we get unique test names if several DejaGnu directives
refer to the same line", once and for all? OK to push after proper
testing?
Grüße
Thomas
-----------------
Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634 München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: Thomas Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der Gesellschaft: München; Registergericht München, HRB 106955
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: 0001-Make-sure-that-we-get-unique-test-names-if-several-D.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 1415 bytes --]
From 6e3ae5784888be70056ccc3bb7d379fa8e7f6fc0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Thomas Schwinge <thomas@codesourcery.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 12:42:41 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Make sure that we get unique test names if several DejaGnu
directives refer to the same line
gcc/testsuite/
* lib/gcc-dg.exp (process-message): Make sure that we get unique
test names.
---
gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp | 14 ++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp
index 7edd070d71d..78a6c3651ef 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp
@@ -1191,8 +1191,18 @@ proc process-message { msgproc msgprefix dgargs } {
upvar dg-messages dg-messages
if { [llength $dgargs] == 5 } {
- set num [get-absolute-line [lindex $dgargs 0] [lindex $dgargs 4]]
- set dgargs [lreplace $dgargs 4 4 $num]
+ set useline [lindex $dgargs 0]
+
+ # Resolve absolute line number.
+ set line [get-absolute-line $useline [lindex $dgargs 4]]
+ set dgargs [lreplace $dgargs 4 4 $line]
+
+ if { $line != $useline } {
+ # Make sure that we get unique test names if different USELINEs
+ # refer to the same LINE.
+ set comment "[lindex $dgargs 2] at line $useline"
+ set dgargs [lreplace $dgargs 2 2 $comment]
+ }
}
# Process the dg- directive, including adding the regular expression
--
2.33.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [ping] Make sure that we get unique test names if several DejaGnu directives refer to the same line (was: [committed] Make test names unique for a couple of goacc tests)
2021-09-22 11:03 ` Thomas Schwinge
@ 2021-09-30 6:42 ` Thomas Schwinge
2021-10-14 10:12 ` [ping^2] Make sure that we get unique test names if several DejaGnu directives refer to the same line [PR102735] Thomas Schwinge
2021-12-02 21:30 ` [committed] Make test names unique for a couple of goacc tests Jeff Law
1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Schwinge @ 2021-09-30 6:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Law, gcc-patches
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5223 bytes --]
Hi!
Ping.
On 2021-09-22T13:03:46+0200, I wrote:
> On 2021-09-19T11:35:00-0600, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>> A couple of goacc tests do not have unique names.
>
> Thanks for fixing this up, and sorry, largely my "fault", I suppose. ;-|
>
>> This causes problems
>> for the test comparison script when one of the test passes and the other
>> fails -- in this scenario the test comparison script claims there is a
>> regression.
>
> So I understand correctly that this is a problem not just for actual
> mixed PASS vs. FAIL (which we'd like you to report anyway!) that appear
> for the same line, but also for mixed PASS vs. XFAIL? (Because, the
> latter appears to be what you're addressing with your commit here.)
>
>> This slipped through for a while because I had turned off x86_64 testing
>> (others test it regularly and I was revamping the tester's hardware
>> requirements). Now that I've acquired more x86_64 resources and turned
>> on native x86 testing again, it's been flagged.
>
> (I don't follow that argument -- these test cases should be all generic?
> Anyway, not important, I guess.)
>
>> This patch just adds a numeric suffix to the TODO string to disambiguate
>> them.
>
> So, instead of doing this manually (always error-prone!), like you've...
>
>> Committed to the trunk,
>
>> commit f75b237254f32d5be32c9d9610983b777abea633
>> Author: Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>
>> Date: Sun Sep 19 13:31:32 2021 -0400
>>
>> [committed] Make test names unique for a couple of goacc tests
>
>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90
>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90
>> @@ -39,9 +39,9 @@ contains
>> !$acc atomic write ! ... to force 'TREE_ADDRESSABLE'.
>> y = a
>> !$acc end parallel
>> - ! { dg-note {variable 'i' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>> - ! { dg-note {variable 'j' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>> - ! { dg-note {variable 'a' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>> + ! { dg-note {variable 'i' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO2" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>> + ! { dg-note {variable 'j' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO3" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>> + ! { dg-note {variable 'a' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO4" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>
> ... etc. (also similarly in a handful of earlier commits, if I remember
> correctly), why don't we do that programmatically, like in the attached
> "Make sure that we get unique test names if several DejaGnu directives
> refer to the same line", once and for all? OK to push after proper
> testing?
Attached again, for easy reference.
I figure it may help if I showed an example of how this changes things;
for the test case cited above (word-diff):
PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 40+} (test for warnings, line 39)
PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 41+} (test for warnings, line 22)
PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 42+} (test for warnings, line 39)
PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 43+} (test for warnings, line 22)
PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 44+} (test for warnings, line 39)
PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 45+} (test for warnings, line 22)
XFAIL: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O TODO2 {+at line 50+} (test for warnings, line 29)
XFAIL: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O TODO3 {+at line 51+} (test for warnings, line 29)
XFAIL: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O TODO4 {+at line 52+} (test for warnings, line 29)
PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O TODO {+at line 53+} (test for warnings, line 29)
PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 54+} (test for warnings, line 29)
PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O (test for excess errors)
Given that we now amend the 'comment' by 'at line $useline"', and given
that only ever one DejaGnu directive may appear on one source line, all
these output lines now must be unique. (If we wanted to, we again could
's%TODO[0-9]+%TODO%', reverting your change cited above.)
Grüße
Thomas
-----------------
Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634 München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: Thomas Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der Gesellschaft: München; Registergericht München, HRB 106955
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: 0001-Make-sure-that-we-get-unique-test-names-if-several-D.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 1415 bytes --]
From 6e3ae5784888be70056ccc3bb7d379fa8e7f6fc0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Thomas Schwinge <thomas@codesourcery.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 12:42:41 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Make sure that we get unique test names if several DejaGnu
directives refer to the same line
gcc/testsuite/
* lib/gcc-dg.exp (process-message): Make sure that we get unique
test names.
---
gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp | 14 ++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp
index 7edd070d71d..78a6c3651ef 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp
@@ -1191,8 +1191,18 @@ proc process-message { msgproc msgprefix dgargs } {
upvar dg-messages dg-messages
if { [llength $dgargs] == 5 } {
- set num [get-absolute-line [lindex $dgargs 0] [lindex $dgargs 4]]
- set dgargs [lreplace $dgargs 4 4 $num]
+ set useline [lindex $dgargs 0]
+
+ # Resolve absolute line number.
+ set line [get-absolute-line $useline [lindex $dgargs 4]]
+ set dgargs [lreplace $dgargs 4 4 $line]
+
+ if { $line != $useline } {
+ # Make sure that we get unique test names if different USELINEs
+ # refer to the same LINE.
+ set comment "[lindex $dgargs 2] at line $useline"
+ set dgargs [lreplace $dgargs 2 2 $comment]
+ }
}
# Process the dg- directive, including adding the regular expression
--
2.33.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [ping^2] Make sure that we get unique test names if several DejaGnu directives refer to the same line [PR102735]
2021-09-30 6:42 ` [ping] Make sure that we get unique test names if several DejaGnu directives refer to the same line (was: [committed] Make test names unique for a couple of goacc tests) Thomas Schwinge
@ 2021-10-14 10:12 ` Thomas Schwinge
2021-11-08 10:45 ` [ping^3] " Thomas Schwinge
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Schwinge @ 2021-10-14 10:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Law, gcc-patches; +Cc: Rainer Orth, Mike Stump, nickhuang99
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5537 bytes --]
Hi!
Ping, again.
Commit log updated for <https://gcc.gnu.org/PR102735>
"privatization-1-compute.c results in both XFAIL and PASS".
Grüße
Thomas
On 2021-09-30T08:42:25+0200, I wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Ping.
>
> On 2021-09-22T13:03:46+0200, I wrote:
>> On 2021-09-19T11:35:00-0600, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>>> A couple of goacc tests do not have unique names.
>>
>> Thanks for fixing this up, and sorry, largely my "fault", I suppose. ;-|
>>
>>> This causes problems
>>> for the test comparison script when one of the test passes and the other
>>> fails -- in this scenario the test comparison script claims there is a
>>> regression.
>>
>> So I understand correctly that this is a problem not just for actual
>> mixed PASS vs. FAIL (which we'd like you to report anyway!) that appear
>> for the same line, but also for mixed PASS vs. XFAIL? (Because, the
>> latter appears to be what you're addressing with your commit here.)
>>
>>> This slipped through for a while because I had turned off x86_64 testing
>>> (others test it regularly and I was revamping the tester's hardware
>>> requirements). Now that I've acquired more x86_64 resources and turned
>>> on native x86 testing again, it's been flagged.
>>
>> (I don't follow that argument -- these test cases should be all generic?
>> Anyway, not important, I guess.)
>>
>>> This patch just adds a numeric suffix to the TODO string to disambiguate
>>> them.
>>
>> So, instead of doing this manually (always error-prone!), like you've...
>>
>>> Committed to the trunk,
>>
>>> commit f75b237254f32d5be32c9d9610983b777abea633
>>> Author: Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>
>>> Date: Sun Sep 19 13:31:32 2021 -0400
>>>
>>> [committed] Make test names unique for a couple of goacc tests
>>
>>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90
>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90
>>> @@ -39,9 +39,9 @@ contains
>>> !$acc atomic write ! ... to force 'TREE_ADDRESSABLE'.
>>> y = a
>>> !$acc end parallel
>>> - ! { dg-note {variable 'i' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>>> - ! { dg-note {variable 'j' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>>> - ! { dg-note {variable 'a' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>>> + ! { dg-note {variable 'i' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO2" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>>> + ! { dg-note {variable 'j' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO3" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>>> + ! { dg-note {variable 'a' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO4" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>>
>> ... etc. (also similarly in a handful of earlier commits, if I remember
>> correctly), why don't we do that programmatically, like in the attached
>> "Make sure that we get unique test names if several DejaGnu directives
>> refer to the same line", once and for all? OK to push after proper
>> testing?
>
> Attached again, for easy reference.
>
> I figure it may help if I showed an example of how this changes things;
> for the test case cited above (word-diff):
>
> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 40+} (test for warnings, line 39)
> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 41+} (test for warnings, line 22)
> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 42+} (test for warnings, line 39)
> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 43+} (test for warnings, line 22)
> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 44+} (test for warnings, line 39)
> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 45+} (test for warnings, line 22)
> XFAIL: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O TODO2 {+at line 50+} (test for warnings, line 29)
> XFAIL: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O TODO3 {+at line 51+} (test for warnings, line 29)
> XFAIL: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O TODO4 {+at line 52+} (test for warnings, line 29)
> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O TODO {+at line 53+} (test for warnings, line 29)
> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 54+} (test for warnings, line 29)
> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O (test for excess errors)
>
> Given that we now amend the 'comment' by 'at line $useline"', and given
> that only ever one DejaGnu directive may appear on one source line, all
> these output lines now must be unique. (If we wanted to, we again could
> 's%TODO[0-9]+%TODO%', reverting your change cited above.)
>
>
> Grüße
> Thomas
-----------------
Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634 München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: Thomas Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der Gesellschaft: München; Registergericht München, HRB 106955
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: 0001-Make-sure-that-we-get-unique-test-names-if-several-D.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 1447 bytes --]
From 347cce092ebd954d91046804c1d2b51b24eef68b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Thomas Schwinge <thomas@codesourcery.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 12:42:41 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Make sure that we get unique test names if several DejaGnu
directives refer to the same line [PR102735]
gcc/testsuite/
PR testsuite/102735
* lib/gcc-dg.exp (process-message): Make sure that we get unique
test names.
---
gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp | 14 ++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp
index 7edd070d71d..78a6c3651ef 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp
@@ -1191,8 +1191,18 @@ proc process-message { msgproc msgprefix dgargs } {
upvar dg-messages dg-messages
if { [llength $dgargs] == 5 } {
- set num [get-absolute-line [lindex $dgargs 0] [lindex $dgargs 4]]
- set dgargs [lreplace $dgargs 4 4 $num]
+ set useline [lindex $dgargs 0]
+
+ # Resolve absolute line number.
+ set line [get-absolute-line $useline [lindex $dgargs 4]]
+ set dgargs [lreplace $dgargs 4 4 $line]
+
+ if { $line != $useline } {
+ # Make sure that we get unique test names if different USELINEs
+ # refer to the same LINE.
+ set comment "[lindex $dgargs 2] at line $useline"
+ set dgargs [lreplace $dgargs 2 2 $comment]
+ }
}
# Process the dg- directive, including adding the regular expression
--
2.33.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [ping^3] Make sure that we get unique test names if several DejaGnu directives refer to the same line [PR102735]
2021-10-14 10:12 ` [ping^2] Make sure that we get unique test names if several DejaGnu directives refer to the same line [PR102735] Thomas Schwinge
@ 2021-11-08 10:45 ` Thomas Schwinge
2021-11-15 14:50 ` [ping^4] " Thomas Schwinge
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Schwinge @ 2021-11-08 10:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Law, gcc-patches; +Cc: Rainer Orth, Mike Stump, nickhuang99
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5733 bytes --]
Hi!
Ping, once more.
Grüße
Thomas
On 2021-10-14T12:12:41+0200, I wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Ping, again.
>
> Commit log updated for <https://gcc.gnu.org/PR102735>
> "privatization-1-compute.c results in both XFAIL and PASS".
>
>
> Grüße
> Thomas
>
>
> On 2021-09-30T08:42:25+0200, I wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> Ping.
>>
>> On 2021-09-22T13:03:46+0200, I wrote:
>>> On 2021-09-19T11:35:00-0600, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>>>> A couple of goacc tests do not have unique names.
>>>
>>> Thanks for fixing this up, and sorry, largely my "fault", I suppose. ;-|
>>>
>>>> This causes problems
>>>> for the test comparison script when one of the test passes and the other
>>>> fails -- in this scenario the test comparison script claims there is a
>>>> regression.
>>>
>>> So I understand correctly that this is a problem not just for actual
>>> mixed PASS vs. FAIL (which we'd like you to report anyway!) that appear
>>> for the same line, but also for mixed PASS vs. XFAIL? (Because, the
>>> latter appears to be what you're addressing with your commit here.)
>>>
>>>> This slipped through for a while because I had turned off x86_64 testing
>>>> (others test it regularly and I was revamping the tester's hardware
>>>> requirements). Now that I've acquired more x86_64 resources and turned
>>>> on native x86 testing again, it's been flagged.
>>>
>>> (I don't follow that argument -- these test cases should be all generic?
>>> Anyway, not important, I guess.)
>>>
>>>> This patch just adds a numeric suffix to the TODO string to disambiguate
>>>> them.
>>>
>>> So, instead of doing this manually (always error-prone!), like you've...
>>>
>>>> Committed to the trunk,
>>>
>>>> commit f75b237254f32d5be32c9d9610983b777abea633
>>>> Author: Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Sun Sep 19 13:31:32 2021 -0400
>>>>
>>>> [committed] Make test names unique for a couple of goacc tests
>>>
>>>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90
>>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90
>>>> @@ -39,9 +39,9 @@ contains
>>>> !$acc atomic write ! ... to force 'TREE_ADDRESSABLE'.
>>>> y = a
>>>> !$acc end parallel
>>>> - ! { dg-note {variable 'i' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>>>> - ! { dg-note {variable 'j' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>>>> - ! { dg-note {variable 'a' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>>>> + ! { dg-note {variable 'i' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO2" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>>>> + ! { dg-note {variable 'j' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO3" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>>>> + ! { dg-note {variable 'a' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO4" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>>>
>>> ... etc. (also similarly in a handful of earlier commits, if I remember
>>> correctly), why don't we do that programmatically, like in the attached
>>> "Make sure that we get unique test names if several DejaGnu directives
>>> refer to the same line", once and for all? OK to push after proper
>>> testing?
>>
>> Attached again, for easy reference.
>>
>> I figure it may help if I showed an example of how this changes things;
>> for the test case cited above (word-diff):
>>
>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 40+} (test for warnings, line 39)
>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 41+} (test for warnings, line 22)
>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 42+} (test for warnings, line 39)
>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 43+} (test for warnings, line 22)
>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 44+} (test for warnings, line 39)
>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 45+} (test for warnings, line 22)
>> XFAIL: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O TODO2 {+at line 50+} (test for warnings, line 29)
>> XFAIL: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O TODO3 {+at line 51+} (test for warnings, line 29)
>> XFAIL: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O TODO4 {+at line 52+} (test for warnings, line 29)
>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O TODO {+at line 53+} (test for warnings, line 29)
>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 54+} (test for warnings, line 29)
>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O (test for excess errors)
>>
>> Given that we now amend the 'comment' by 'at line $useline"', and given
>> that only ever one DejaGnu directive may appear on one source line, all
>> these output lines now must be unique. (If we wanted to, we again could
>> 's%TODO[0-9]+%TODO%', reverting your change cited above.)
>>
>>
>> Grüße
>> Thomas
-----------------
Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634 München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: Thomas Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der Gesellschaft: München; Registergericht München, HRB 106955
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: 0001-Make-sure-that-we-get-unique-test-names-if-several-D.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 1447 bytes --]
From 347cce092ebd954d91046804c1d2b51b24eef68b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Thomas Schwinge <thomas@codesourcery.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 12:42:41 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Make sure that we get unique test names if several DejaGnu
directives refer to the same line [PR102735]
gcc/testsuite/
PR testsuite/102735
* lib/gcc-dg.exp (process-message): Make sure that we get unique
test names.
---
gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp | 14 ++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp
index 7edd070d71d..78a6c3651ef 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp
@@ -1191,8 +1191,18 @@ proc process-message { msgproc msgprefix dgargs } {
upvar dg-messages dg-messages
if { [llength $dgargs] == 5 } {
- set num [get-absolute-line [lindex $dgargs 0] [lindex $dgargs 4]]
- set dgargs [lreplace $dgargs 4 4 $num]
+ set useline [lindex $dgargs 0]
+
+ # Resolve absolute line number.
+ set line [get-absolute-line $useline [lindex $dgargs 4]]
+ set dgargs [lreplace $dgargs 4 4 $line]
+
+ if { $line != $useline } {
+ # Make sure that we get unique test names if different USELINEs
+ # refer to the same LINE.
+ set comment "[lindex $dgargs 2] at line $useline"
+ set dgargs [lreplace $dgargs 2 2 $comment]
+ }
}
# Process the dg- directive, including adding the regular expression
--
2.33.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [ping^4] Make sure that we get unique test names if several DejaGnu directives refer to the same line [PR102735]
2021-11-08 10:45 ` [ping^3] " Thomas Schwinge
@ 2021-11-15 14:50 ` Thomas Schwinge
2021-11-22 10:27 ` [ping^5] " Thomas Schwinge
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Schwinge @ 2021-11-15 14:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Law, gcc-patches; +Cc: Rainer Orth, Mike Stump, nickhuang99
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5951 bytes --]
Hi!
..., and here is another ping.
Grüße
Thomas
On 2021-11-08T11:45:12+0100, I wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Ping, once more.
>
>
> Grüße
> Thomas
>
>
> On 2021-10-14T12:12:41+0200, I wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> Ping, again.
>>
>> Commit log updated for <https://gcc.gnu.org/PR102735>
>> "privatization-1-compute.c results in both XFAIL and PASS".
>>
>>
>> Grüße
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>> On 2021-09-30T08:42:25+0200, I wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> Ping.
>>>
>>> On 2021-09-22T13:03:46+0200, I wrote:
>>>> On 2021-09-19T11:35:00-0600, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>>>>> A couple of goacc tests do not have unique names.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for fixing this up, and sorry, largely my "fault", I suppose. ;-|
>>>>
>>>>> This causes problems
>>>>> for the test comparison script when one of the test passes and the other
>>>>> fails -- in this scenario the test comparison script claims there is a
>>>>> regression.
>>>>
>>>> So I understand correctly that this is a problem not just for actual
>>>> mixed PASS vs. FAIL (which we'd like you to report anyway!) that appear
>>>> for the same line, but also for mixed PASS vs. XFAIL? (Because, the
>>>> latter appears to be what you're addressing with your commit here.)
>>>>
>>>>> This slipped through for a while because I had turned off x86_64 testing
>>>>> (others test it regularly and I was revamping the tester's hardware
>>>>> requirements). Now that I've acquired more x86_64 resources and turned
>>>>> on native x86 testing again, it's been flagged.
>>>>
>>>> (I don't follow that argument -- these test cases should be all generic?
>>>> Anyway, not important, I guess.)
>>>>
>>>>> This patch just adds a numeric suffix to the TODO string to disambiguate
>>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> So, instead of doing this manually (always error-prone!), like you've...
>>>>
>>>>> Committed to the trunk,
>>>>
>>>>> commit f75b237254f32d5be32c9d9610983b777abea633
>>>>> Author: Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>
>>>>> Date: Sun Sep 19 13:31:32 2021 -0400
>>>>>
>>>>> [committed] Make test names unique for a couple of goacc tests
>>>>
>>>>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90
>>>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90
>>>>> @@ -39,9 +39,9 @@ contains
>>>>> !$acc atomic write ! ... to force 'TREE_ADDRESSABLE'.
>>>>> y = a
>>>>> !$acc end parallel
>>>>> - ! { dg-note {variable 'i' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>>>>> - ! { dg-note {variable 'j' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>>>>> - ! { dg-note {variable 'a' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>>>>> + ! { dg-note {variable 'i' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO2" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>>>>> + ! { dg-note {variable 'j' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO3" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>>>>> + ! { dg-note {variable 'a' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO4" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>>>>
>>>> ... etc. (also similarly in a handful of earlier commits, if I remember
>>>> correctly), why don't we do that programmatically, like in the attached
>>>> "Make sure that we get unique test names if several DejaGnu directives
>>>> refer to the same line", once and for all? OK to push after proper
>>>> testing?
>>>
>>> Attached again, for easy reference.
>>>
>>> I figure it may help if I showed an example of how this changes things;
>>> for the test case cited above (word-diff):
>>>
>>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 40+} (test for warnings, line 39)
>>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 41+} (test for warnings, line 22)
>>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 42+} (test for warnings, line 39)
>>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 43+} (test for warnings, line 22)
>>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 44+} (test for warnings, line 39)
>>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 45+} (test for warnings, line 22)
>>> XFAIL: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O TODO2 {+at line 50+} (test for warnings, line 29)
>>> XFAIL: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O TODO3 {+at line 51+} (test for warnings, line 29)
>>> XFAIL: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O TODO4 {+at line 52+} (test for warnings, line 29)
>>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O TODO {+at line 53+} (test for warnings, line 29)
>>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 54+} (test for warnings, line 29)
>>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O (test for excess errors)
>>>
>>> Given that we now amend the 'comment' by 'at line $useline"', and given
>>> that only ever one DejaGnu directive may appear on one source line, all
>>> these output lines now must be unique. (If we wanted to, we again could
>>> 's%TODO[0-9]+%TODO%', reverting your change cited above.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Grüße
>>> Thomas
-----------------
Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634 München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: Thomas Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der Gesellschaft: München; Registergericht München, HRB 106955
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: 0001-Make-sure-that-we-get-unique-test-names-if-several-D.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 1447 bytes --]
From 347cce092ebd954d91046804c1d2b51b24eef68b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Thomas Schwinge <thomas@codesourcery.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 12:42:41 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Make sure that we get unique test names if several DejaGnu
directives refer to the same line [PR102735]
gcc/testsuite/
PR testsuite/102735
* lib/gcc-dg.exp (process-message): Make sure that we get unique
test names.
---
gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp | 14 ++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp
index 7edd070d71d..78a6c3651ef 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp
@@ -1191,8 +1191,18 @@ proc process-message { msgproc msgprefix dgargs } {
upvar dg-messages dg-messages
if { [llength $dgargs] == 5 } {
- set num [get-absolute-line [lindex $dgargs 0] [lindex $dgargs 4]]
- set dgargs [lreplace $dgargs 4 4 $num]
+ set useline [lindex $dgargs 0]
+
+ # Resolve absolute line number.
+ set line [get-absolute-line $useline [lindex $dgargs 4]]
+ set dgargs [lreplace $dgargs 4 4 $line]
+
+ if { $line != $useline } {
+ # Make sure that we get unique test names if different USELINEs
+ # refer to the same LINE.
+ set comment "[lindex $dgargs 2] at line $useline"
+ set dgargs [lreplace $dgargs 2 2 $comment]
+ }
}
# Process the dg- directive, including adding the regular expression
--
2.33.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [ping^5] Make sure that we get unique test names if several DejaGnu directives refer to the same line [PR102735]
2021-11-15 14:50 ` [ping^4] " Thomas Schwinge
@ 2021-11-22 10:27 ` Thomas Schwinge
2021-11-30 15:17 ` [ping^6] " Thomas Schwinge
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Schwinge @ 2021-11-22 10:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Law, gcc-patches, Rainer Orth, Mike Stump; +Cc: nickhuang99
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6154 bytes --]
Hi!
Ping.
Grüße
Thomas
On 2021-11-15T15:50:58+0100, I wrote:
> Hi!
>
> ..., and here is another ping.
>
>
> Grüße
> Thomas
>
>
> On 2021-11-08T11:45:12+0100, I wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> Ping, once more.
>>
>>
>> Grüße
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>> On 2021-10-14T12:12:41+0200, I wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> Ping, again.
>>>
>>> Commit log updated for <https://gcc.gnu.org/PR102735>
>>> "privatization-1-compute.c results in both XFAIL and PASS".
>>>
>>>
>>> Grüße
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2021-09-30T08:42:25+0200, I wrote:
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> Ping.
>>>>
>>>> On 2021-09-22T13:03:46+0200, I wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-09-19T11:35:00-0600, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>>>>>> A couple of goacc tests do not have unique names.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for fixing this up, and sorry, largely my "fault", I suppose. ;-|
>>>>>
>>>>>> This causes problems
>>>>>> for the test comparison script when one of the test passes and the other
>>>>>> fails -- in this scenario the test comparison script claims there is a
>>>>>> regression.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I understand correctly that this is a problem not just for actual
>>>>> mixed PASS vs. FAIL (which we'd like you to report anyway!) that appear
>>>>> for the same line, but also for mixed PASS vs. XFAIL? (Because, the
>>>>> latter appears to be what you're addressing with your commit here.)
>>>>>
>>>>>> This slipped through for a while because I had turned off x86_64 testing
>>>>>> (others test it regularly and I was revamping the tester's hardware
>>>>>> requirements). Now that I've acquired more x86_64 resources and turned
>>>>>> on native x86 testing again, it's been flagged.
>>>>>
>>>>> (I don't follow that argument -- these test cases should be all generic?
>>>>> Anyway, not important, I guess.)
>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch just adds a numeric suffix to the TODO string to disambiguate
>>>>>> them.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, instead of doing this manually (always error-prone!), like you've...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Committed to the trunk,
>>>>>
>>>>>> commit f75b237254f32d5be32c9d9610983b777abea633
>>>>>> Author: Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>
>>>>>> Date: Sun Sep 19 13:31:32 2021 -0400
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [committed] Make test names unique for a couple of goacc tests
>>>>>
>>>>>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90
>>>>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90
>>>>>> @@ -39,9 +39,9 @@ contains
>>>>>> !$acc atomic write ! ... to force 'TREE_ADDRESSABLE'.
>>>>>> y = a
>>>>>> !$acc end parallel
>>>>>> - ! { dg-note {variable 'i' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>>>>>> - ! { dg-note {variable 'j' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>>>>>> - ! { dg-note {variable 'a' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>>>>>> + ! { dg-note {variable 'i' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO2" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>>>>>> + ! { dg-note {variable 'j' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO3" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>>>>>> + ! { dg-note {variable 'a' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO4" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>>>>>
>>>>> ... etc. (also similarly in a handful of earlier commits, if I remember
>>>>> correctly), why don't we do that programmatically, like in the attached
>>>>> "Make sure that we get unique test names if several DejaGnu directives
>>>>> refer to the same line", once and for all? OK to push after proper
>>>>> testing?
>>>>
>>>> Attached again, for easy reference.
>>>>
>>>> I figure it may help if I showed an example of how this changes things;
>>>> for the test case cited above (word-diff):
>>>>
>>>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 40+} (test for warnings, line 39)
>>>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 41+} (test for warnings, line 22)
>>>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 42+} (test for warnings, line 39)
>>>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 43+} (test for warnings, line 22)
>>>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 44+} (test for warnings, line 39)
>>>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 45+} (test for warnings, line 22)
>>>> XFAIL: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O TODO2 {+at line 50+} (test for warnings, line 29)
>>>> XFAIL: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O TODO3 {+at line 51+} (test for warnings, line 29)
>>>> XFAIL: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O TODO4 {+at line 52+} (test for warnings, line 29)
>>>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O TODO {+at line 53+} (test for warnings, line 29)
>>>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 54+} (test for warnings, line 29)
>>>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O (test for excess errors)
>>>>
>>>> Given that we now amend the 'comment' by 'at line $useline"', and given
>>>> that only ever one DejaGnu directive may appear on one source line, all
>>>> these output lines now must be unique. (If we wanted to, we again could
>>>> 's%TODO[0-9]+%TODO%', reverting your change cited above.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Grüße
>>>> Thomas
-----------------
Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634 München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: Thomas Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der Gesellschaft: München; Registergericht München, HRB 106955
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: 0001-Make-sure-that-we-get-unique-test-names-if-several-D.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 1447 bytes --]
From 347cce092ebd954d91046804c1d2b51b24eef68b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Thomas Schwinge <thomas@codesourcery.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 12:42:41 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Make sure that we get unique test names if several DejaGnu
directives refer to the same line [PR102735]
gcc/testsuite/
PR testsuite/102735
* lib/gcc-dg.exp (process-message): Make sure that we get unique
test names.
---
gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp | 14 ++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp
index 7edd070d71d..78a6c3651ef 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp
@@ -1191,8 +1191,18 @@ proc process-message { msgproc msgprefix dgargs } {
upvar dg-messages dg-messages
if { [llength $dgargs] == 5 } {
- set num [get-absolute-line [lindex $dgargs 0] [lindex $dgargs 4]]
- set dgargs [lreplace $dgargs 4 4 $num]
+ set useline [lindex $dgargs 0]
+
+ # Resolve absolute line number.
+ set line [get-absolute-line $useline [lindex $dgargs 4]]
+ set dgargs [lreplace $dgargs 4 4 $line]
+
+ if { $line != $useline } {
+ # Make sure that we get unique test names if different USELINEs
+ # refer to the same LINE.
+ set comment "[lindex $dgargs 2] at line $useline"
+ set dgargs [lreplace $dgargs 2 2 $comment]
+ }
}
# Process the dg- directive, including adding the regular expression
--
2.33.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [ping^6] Make sure that we get unique test names if several DejaGnu directives refer to the same line [PR102735]
2021-11-22 10:27 ` [ping^5] " Thomas Schwinge
@ 2021-11-30 15:17 ` Thomas Schwinge
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Schwinge @ 2021-11-30 15:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Law, gcc-patches, Rainer Orth, Mike Stump; +Cc: nickhuang99
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6460 bytes --]
Hi!
I know I'm late this week ;-\ -- but here is another ping.
Grüße
Thomas
On 2021-11-22T11:27:49+0100, Thomas Schwinge <thomas@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Ping.
>
>
> Grüße
> Thomas
>
>
> On 2021-11-15T15:50:58+0100, I wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> ..., and here is another ping.
>>
>>
>> Grüße
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>> On 2021-11-08T11:45:12+0100, I wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> Ping, once more.
>>>
>>>
>>> Grüße
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2021-10-14T12:12:41+0200, I wrote:
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> Ping, again.
>>>>
>>>> Commit log updated for <https://gcc.gnu.org/PR102735>
>>>> "privatization-1-compute.c results in both XFAIL and PASS".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Grüße
>>>> Thomas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2021-09-30T08:42:25+0200, I wrote:
>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>
>>>>> Ping.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2021-09-22T13:03:46+0200, I wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021-09-19T11:35:00-0600, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> A couple of goacc tests do not have unique names.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for fixing this up, and sorry, largely my "fault", I suppose. ;-|
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This causes problems
>>>>>>> for the test comparison script when one of the test passes and the other
>>>>>>> fails -- in this scenario the test comparison script claims there is a
>>>>>>> regression.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I understand correctly that this is a problem not just for actual
>>>>>> mixed PASS vs. FAIL (which we'd like you to report anyway!) that appear
>>>>>> for the same line, but also for mixed PASS vs. XFAIL? (Because, the
>>>>>> latter appears to be what you're addressing with your commit here.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This slipped through for a while because I had turned off x86_64 testing
>>>>>>> (others test it regularly and I was revamping the tester's hardware
>>>>>>> requirements). Now that I've acquired more x86_64 resources and turned
>>>>>>> on native x86 testing again, it's been flagged.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (I don't follow that argument -- these test cases should be all generic?
>>>>>> Anyway, not important, I guess.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This patch just adds a numeric suffix to the TODO string to disambiguate
>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, instead of doing this manually (always error-prone!), like you've...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Committed to the trunk,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> commit f75b237254f32d5be32c9d9610983b777abea633
>>>>>>> Author: Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> Date: Sun Sep 19 13:31:32 2021 -0400
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [committed] Make test names unique for a couple of goacc tests
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90
>>>>>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90
>>>>>>> @@ -39,9 +39,9 @@ contains
>>>>>>> !$acc atomic write ! ... to force 'TREE_ADDRESSABLE'.
>>>>>>> y = a
>>>>>>> !$acc end parallel
>>>>>>> - ! { dg-note {variable 'i' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>>>>>>> - ! { dg-note {variable 'j' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>>>>>>> - ! { dg-note {variable 'a' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>>>>>>> + ! { dg-note {variable 'i' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO2" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>>>>>>> + ! { dg-note {variable 'j' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO3" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>>>>>>> + ! { dg-note {variable 'a' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO4" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ... etc. (also similarly in a handful of earlier commits, if I remember
>>>>>> correctly), why don't we do that programmatically, like in the attached
>>>>>> "Make sure that we get unique test names if several DejaGnu directives
>>>>>> refer to the same line", once and for all? OK to push after proper
>>>>>> testing?
>>>>>
>>>>> Attached again, for easy reference.
>>>>>
>>>>> I figure it may help if I showed an example of how this changes things;
>>>>> for the test case cited above (word-diff):
>>>>>
>>>>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 40+} (test for warnings, line 39)
>>>>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 41+} (test for warnings, line 22)
>>>>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 42+} (test for warnings, line 39)
>>>>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 43+} (test for warnings, line 22)
>>>>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 44+} (test for warnings, line 39)
>>>>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 45+} (test for warnings, line 22)
>>>>> XFAIL: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O TODO2 {+at line 50+} (test for warnings, line 29)
>>>>> XFAIL: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O TODO3 {+at line 51+} (test for warnings, line 29)
>>>>> XFAIL: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O TODO4 {+at line 52+} (test for warnings, line 29)
>>>>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O TODO {+at line 53+} (test for warnings, line 29)
>>>>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 54+} (test for warnings, line 29)
>>>>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O (test for excess errors)
>>>>>
>>>>> Given that we now amend the 'comment' by 'at line $useline"', and given
>>>>> that only ever one DejaGnu directive may appear on one source line, all
>>>>> these output lines now must be unique. (If we wanted to, we again could
>>>>> 's%TODO[0-9]+%TODO%', reverting your change cited above.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Grüße
>>>>> Thomas
-----------------
Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634 München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: Thomas Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der Gesellschaft: München; Registergericht München, HRB 106955
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: 0001-Make-sure-that-we-get-unique-test-names-if-several-D.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 1447 bytes --]
From 347cce092ebd954d91046804c1d2b51b24eef68b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Thomas Schwinge <thomas@codesourcery.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 12:42:41 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Make sure that we get unique test names if several DejaGnu
directives refer to the same line [PR102735]
gcc/testsuite/
PR testsuite/102735
* lib/gcc-dg.exp (process-message): Make sure that we get unique
test names.
---
gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp | 14 ++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp
index 7edd070d71d..78a6c3651ef 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp
@@ -1191,8 +1191,18 @@ proc process-message { msgproc msgprefix dgargs } {
upvar dg-messages dg-messages
if { [llength $dgargs] == 5 } {
- set num [get-absolute-line [lindex $dgargs 0] [lindex $dgargs 4]]
- set dgargs [lreplace $dgargs 4 4 $num]
+ set useline [lindex $dgargs 0]
+
+ # Resolve absolute line number.
+ set line [get-absolute-line $useline [lindex $dgargs 4]]
+ set dgargs [lreplace $dgargs 4 4 $line]
+
+ if { $line != $useline } {
+ # Make sure that we get unique test names if different USELINEs
+ # refer to the same LINE.
+ set comment "[lindex $dgargs 2] at line $useline"
+ set dgargs [lreplace $dgargs 2 2 $comment]
+ }
}
# Process the dg- directive, including adding the regular expression
--
2.33.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [committed] Make test names unique for a couple of goacc tests
2021-09-22 11:03 ` Thomas Schwinge
2021-09-30 6:42 ` [ping] Make sure that we get unique test names if several DejaGnu directives refer to the same line (was: [committed] Make test names unique for a couple of goacc tests) Thomas Schwinge
@ 2021-12-02 21:30 ` Jeff Law
1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Law @ 2021-12-02 21:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Schwinge, gcc-patches
On 9/22/2021 5:03 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On 2021-09-19T11:35:00-0600, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches<gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>> A couple of goacc tests do not have unique names.
> Thanks for fixing this up, and sorry, largely my "fault", I suppose. ;-|
No worries. I suspect there's still a ton of these lying around. It
isn't until one of the duplicate test names starts to fail that it
causes headaches.
>
>> This causes problems
>> for the test comparison script when one of the test passes and the other
>> fails -- in this scenario the test comparison script claims there is a
>> regression.
> So I understand correctly that this is a problem not just for actual
> mixed PASS vs. FAIL (which we'd like you to report anyway!) that appear
> for the same line, but also for mixed PASS vs. XFAIL? (Because, the
> latter appears to be what you're addressing with your commit here.)\
Correct. The comparison script gets awful confused when it finds two
tests with the same name and different PASS/FAIL states.
>
>> This slipped through for a while because I had turned off x86_64 testing
>> (others test it regularly and I was revamping the tester's hardware
>> requirements). Now that I've acquired more x86_64 resources and turned
>> on native x86 testing again, it's been flagged.
> (I don't follow that argument -- these test cases should be all generic?
> Anyway, not important, I guess.)
I'd have to dig around, but I'd guess none of the other targets have the
appropriate bits enabled to test hte goacc stuff.
> 0001-Make-sure-that-we-get-unique-test-names-if-several-D.patch
>
> From 6e3ae5784888be70056ccc3bb7d379fa8e7f6fc0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Thomas Schwinge<thomas@codesourcery.com>
> Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 12:42:41 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] Make sure that we get unique test names if several DejaGnu
> directives refer to the same line
>
> gcc/testsuite/
> * lib/gcc-dg.exp (process-message): Make sure that we get unique
> test names.
I like it. Though trying to warp my head around tcl/expect these days
just makes me want to cry. My only worry would be whether or not the
change would confuse people. Though I guess ultimately it'll point to
the absolute line which disambiguates for the scripts and is still
sufficient for humans to quickly see what went wrong.
I'd say let's get it installed and see if there's any fallout. It
obviously just affects the testing harness, so we have more wiggle room
if something goes wrong.
jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-12-02 21:30 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-09-19 17:35 [committed] Make test names unique for a couple of goacc tests Jeff Law
2021-09-22 11:03 ` Thomas Schwinge
2021-09-30 6:42 ` [ping] Make sure that we get unique test names if several DejaGnu directives refer to the same line (was: [committed] Make test names unique for a couple of goacc tests) Thomas Schwinge
2021-10-14 10:12 ` [ping^2] Make sure that we get unique test names if several DejaGnu directives refer to the same line [PR102735] Thomas Schwinge
2021-11-08 10:45 ` [ping^3] " Thomas Schwinge
2021-11-15 14:50 ` [ping^4] " Thomas Schwinge
2021-11-22 10:27 ` [ping^5] " Thomas Schwinge
2021-11-30 15:17 ` [ping^6] " Thomas Schwinge
2021-12-02 21:30 ` [committed] Make test names unique for a couple of goacc tests Jeff Law
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).