Re: [testsuite] Don't XFAIL gfortran.dg/do_1.f90 (PR fortran/54932)
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013, Rainer Orth wrote: > Tobias Burnus writes: > > > Rainer Orth wrote: > >> As discussed in PR fortran/54932, the gfortran.dg/do_1.f90 execution > >> tests recently stated to XPASS at all optimization levels, adding lots > >> of testsuite noise. The following patch removes the xfail, allowing all > >> tests to pass. > >> > >> Tested with the appropriate runtest invocations on > >> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, i386-pc-solaris2.11, and > >> sparc-sun-solaris2.11. Ok for mainline and 4.8 branch? > > > > Removing the xfail is okay. However, I wonder whether it would be better to > > leave a reference to the PR in case the failure pops up again. As the code > > is ill-defined, the failures might pop up in the future and the reference > > can help with analysis. > > I prefer to leave the PR reference removed. If the failure crops up > again, it's a simple matter of looking at the ChangeLog, svn annotate, > or bugzilla to discover the bug, if not, we keep the obsolete comment > forever. > > > OK - as is or with an updated reference to the PR. ? For the branch, it is > > the RMs' call when it can be committed. > > Jakub, Richard? It's fine now. Thanks, Rchard. > > Please wait with the committal until GCC's web mail archive works again for > > gcc-cvs. > > Done. > > Thanks. > Rainer > > > >> 2013-03-19 Rainer Orth > >> > >>PR fortran/54932 > >>* gfortran.dg/do_1.f90: Don't xfail. > > -- Richard Biener SUSE / SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746 GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend
Re: [testsuite] Don't XFAIL gfortran.dg/do_1.f90 (PR fortran/54932)
Tobias Burnus writes: > Rainer Orth wrote: >> As discussed in PR fortran/54932, the gfortran.dg/do_1.f90 execution >> tests recently stated to XPASS at all optimization levels, adding lots >> of testsuite noise. The following patch removes the xfail, allowing all >> tests to pass. >> >> Tested with the appropriate runtest invocations on >> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, i386-pc-solaris2.11, and >> sparc-sun-solaris2.11. Ok for mainline and 4.8 branch? > > Removing the xfail is okay. However, I wonder whether it would be better to > leave a reference to the PR in case the failure pops up again. As the code > is ill-defined, the failures might pop up in the future and the reference > can help with analysis. I prefer to leave the PR reference removed. If the failure crops up again, it's a simple matter of looking at the ChangeLog, svn annotate, or bugzilla to discover the bug, if not, we keep the obsolete comment forever. > OK - as is or with an updated reference to the PR. – For the branch, it is > the RMs' call when it can be committed. Jakub, Richard? > Please wait with the committal until GCC's web mail archive works again for > gcc-cvs. Done. Thanks. Rainer >> 2013-03-19 Rainer Orth >> >> PR fortran/54932 >> * gfortran.dg/do_1.f90: Don't xfail. -- - Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University
Re: [testsuite] Don't XFAIL gfortran.dg/do_1.f90 (PR fortran/54932)
Rainer Orth wrote: As discussed in PR fortran/54932, the gfortran.dg/do_1.f90 execution tests recently stated to XPASS at all optimization levels, adding lots of testsuite noise. The following patch removes the xfail, allowing all tests to pass. Tested with the appropriate runtest invocations on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, i386-pc-solaris2.11, and sparc-sun-solaris2.11. Ok for mainline and 4.8 branch? Removing the xfail is okay. However, I wonder whether it would be better to leave a reference to the PR in case the failure pops up again. As the code is ill-defined, the failures might pop up in the future and the reference can help with analysis. OK - as is or with an updated reference to the PR. – For the branch, it is the RMs' call when it can be committed. Please wait with the committal until GCC's web mail archive works again for gcc-cvs. Thanks! Tobias 2013-03-19 Rainer Orth PR fortran/54932 * gfortran.dg/do_1.f90: Don't xfail.
