Re: [PATCH] testsuite: fix scan-tree-dump patterns [PR83904, PR100297]
On 4/19/23 17:14, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Gcc-patches wrote: On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 at 03:03, Jerry D via Fortran wrote: On 4/18/23 12:39 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote: Dear all, the attached patch adjusts the scan-tree-dump patterns of the reported testcases which likely were run in a location such that a path in an error message showing in the tree-dump might have accidentally matched "free" or "data", respectively. For the testcase gfortran.dg/reshape_8.f90 I checked with a failing gfortran-11 that the pattern is appropriate. OK for mainline? Thanks, Harald Yes, OK I'm certainly not opposed to this specific incarnation of such a fix. These failures are really unpleasant :) As proposed in https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/20220426010029.2b476337@nbbrfq/ we could add a -fno-file to suppress the assembler .file output (whatever the prefix looks like depends on the assembler dialect). Or we could nuke the .file directives by a sed(1), but that would probably be cumbersome for remote targets. I don't have a better idea than -fno-file or -ffile=foo.c . Fixing them case-by-case does not scale all that well IMHO. Thoughts? ? It wasn't the tree-dumps being at fault, it was the scan patterns.
Re: [PATCH] testsuite: fix scan-tree-dump patterns [PR83904, PR100297]
On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 at 03:03, Jerry D via Fortran wrote: > > On 4/18/23 12:39 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > the attached patch adjusts the scan-tree-dump patterns of the > > reported testcases which likely were run in a location such > > that a path in an error message showing in the tree-dump might > > have accidentally matched "free" or "data", respectively. > > > > For the testcase gfortran.dg/reshape_8.f90 I checked with a > > failing gfortran-11 that the pattern is appropriate. > > > > OK for mainline? > > > > Thanks, > > Harald > > > Yes, OK I'm certainly not opposed to this specific incarnation of such a fix. These failures are really unpleasant :) As proposed in https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/20220426010029.2b476337@nbbrfq/ we could add a -fno-file to suppress the assembler .file output (whatever the prefix looks like depends on the assembler dialect). Or we could nuke the .file directives by a sed(1), but that would probably be cumbersome for remote targets. I don't have a better idea than -fno-file or -ffile=foo.c . Fixing them case-by-case does not scale all that well IMHO. Thoughts?
Re: [PATCH] testsuite: fix scan-tree-dump patterns [PR83904, PR100297]
On 4/18/23 12:39 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote: Dear all, the attached patch adjusts the scan-tree-dump patterns of the reported testcases which likely were run in a location such that a path in an error message showing in the tree-dump might have accidentally matched "free" or "data", respectively. For the testcase gfortran.dg/reshape_8.f90 I checked with a failing gfortran-11 that the pattern is appropriate. OK for mainline? Thanks, Harald Yes, OK Thanks
[PATCH] testsuite: fix scan-tree-dump patterns [PR83904,PR100297]
Dear all,
the attached patch adjusts the scan-tree-dump patterns of the
reported testcases which likely were run in a location such
that a path in an error message showing in the tree-dump might
have accidentally matched "free" or "data", respectively.
For the testcase gfortran.dg/reshape_8.f90 I checked with a
failing gfortran-11 that the pattern is appropriate.
OK for mainline?
Thanks,
Harald
From ad7ea82929f65ef34a13dea5a0fe23d567f220e8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Harald Anlauf
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 21:24:20 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] testsuite: fix scan-tree-dump patterns [PR83904,PR100297]
Adjust scan-tree-dump patterns so that they do not accidentally match a
valid path.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR testsuite/83904
PR fortran/100297
* gfortran.dg/allocatable_function_1.f90: Use "__builtin_free "
instead of the naive "free".
* gfortran.dg/reshape_8.f90: Extend pattern from a simple "data".
---
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/allocatable_function_1.f90 | 2 +-
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/reshape_8.f90 | 2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/allocatable_function_1.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/allocatable_function_1.f90
index f96ebc499e8..e38953bd777 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/allocatable_function_1.f90
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/allocatable_function_1.f90
@@ -107,4 +107,4 @@ contains
end function bar
end program alloc_fun
-! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "free" 10 "original" } }
+! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "__builtin_free " 10 "original" } }
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/reshape_8.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/reshape_8.f90
index 01799ac5c19..56812124cb8 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/reshape_8.f90
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/reshape_8.f90
@@ -11,4 +11,4 @@ program test
a = reshape([1,2,3,4], [2,0])
print *, a
end
-! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "data" 4 "original" } }
+! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-not "data..0. =" "original" } }
--
2.35.3
