> Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 19:36:47 +0300 > From: Janne Blomqvist <blomqvist.ja...@gmail.com>
> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 00:52, Hans-Peter Nilsson > <hans-peter.nils...@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