On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 2, 2012 3:09 PM, "Richard Guenther" <richard.guent...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 03:01:31PM +0100, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer >> > wrote: >> >> PR testsuite/16464 notes that some g77/*.f that contain loops were not >> >> compiled with loop flags. >> >> Compiling only testcases with loop optimization that contain >> >> "endfor/enddo" will lead to ~25% fewer tests (some 30000 instead of >> >> previously 40000). >> >> >> >> Testing in progess, ok if this completes successfully? >> > >> > There are tons of other loop constructs in Fortran, so I don't think >> > this is >> > a good idea. >> >> Indeed. The focus on -O2 testing seems odd to me though, as well as >> doing -g only at -O3. But well ... > > OK, so what should we do about the PR? > Should we just close it, compile the 2 tests mentioned with loop unrolling > or perhaps use just -O for "dg-do preprocess" instead of "compile" so we > compile more testcases with the full option_list?
We can't possibly accomodate all (or even all sensible) compiler options for testcases. So I'd close the bug as wontfix. Btw, -funroll-loops is not exactly triggering very many loop optimizations. Richard. >> Richard.
