------- Comment #21 from paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2007-01-11 19:28 ------- Subject: Re: testsuite failures in actual_array_constructor_2.f90 and actual_array_substr_2.f90
Kaveh, > Paul - I understand that you may not have time to actually fix the bug. > However something seems to have gone wrong here and we need to address it. > Your help in understanding where to go from here is necessary. And I believe > that since you were the proximate cause of the problem (by mistakenly checking > in the patch to 4.0) you are at least morally obligatged to help us understand > what's the best course of action, within the confines of a volunteer effort. > Can we agree on that? > The problem is that I do not see the patch corresponding to the ChangeLogs for the PRs on the gcc-4_0-branch; I downloaded fortran and the testsuite last night. Why is that? > Now I see several possible paths forward: > > 1. Fix the actual bug. Probably not going to happen unless someone > volunteers. > > 2. Revert just the testcases. > > 3. Revert the testcases and the code changes. > > I think if we go with 2 or 3 we need to understand what are the ramifications > of leaving in or taking out the fortran frontend code changes that you > mistakenly checked in last summer. That's where I think your help would be > appreciated. Can you offer an opinion on which option is safer and why? > "Safety" and avoiding regressions is paramount on 4.0 right now, as this > branch > should be kept very stable. > However, I note that the commit to which you pointed, was made by me to trunk: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2006-07/msg00074.html The commit to 4.0 that introduced the testcases was made by aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org in: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2006-07/msg00077.html From this I deduce that (i) the "unseen hands" were not mine and that (ii) It is perfectly safe to revert the testcases. Paul This gcc-cvs entry corresponds with what I see in the 4.0 branch; ie. no patch -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30399
