Re: testsuite: missing or wrong dg-* directives?
Am 14.01.2013 20:49, schrieb Mike Stump:
On Jan 14, 2013, at 6:23 AM, Mikael Morin wrote:
Le 14/01/2013 00:37, Manfred Schwarb a écrit :
Am 14.01.2013 00:10, schrieb Manfred Schwarb:
There are several other oddities: d_g-final, braces have to be
separated by spaces.
Want to send a patch?
Not sure about the double braces in lto, I guess they act simply as
single braces.
I don't know, you may ask a testsuite maintainer, or the author. It is
unlikely though that the author made a typo at the opening brace _and_ at the
closing one.
Yeah… A quick check of the _documentation_ (a terrible thing to waste):
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.5.4/gccint/LTO-Testing.html
Sorry, I just realized that my sentence was not really clear. I was not talking
about removing superfluous braces, but about adding spaces between these double
braces.
dejagnu seems to be very sensitive concerning missing spaces, e.g.
"{ dg-do run}" does silently nothing, it only works if you write it as
"{ dg-do run }".
Manfred
{ dg-lto-options { { options } [{ options }] } [{ target selector }]}
This directive provides a list of one or more sets of compiler options to
override LTO_OPTIONS. Each test will be compiled and run with each of these
sets of options.
Re: testsuite: missing or wrong dg-* directives?
Attached there is a partial patch for the obvious parts, plus other missed cases (missing options). No failures, just a few more passes from the fixed dg-do run's. 2013-01-14 Manfred Schwarb Harald Anlauf * gfortran.dg/bounds_check_4.f90: Add dg-options "-fbounds-check". * gfortran.dg/bounds_check_5.f90: Likewise. * gfortran.dg/class_array_10.f03: Fix syntax of dg-directive. * gfortran.dg/continuation_9.f90: Likewise. * gfortran.dg/move_alloc_13.f90: Likewise. * gfortran.dg/structure_constructor_11.f90: Likewise. * gfortran.dg/tab_continuation.f: Likewise. * gfortran.dg/warning-directive-2.F90: Likewise. * gfortran.dg/coarray_lib_token_4.f90: Remove misspelled directive. Harald, thanks for doing this. I'm not able to sign the famous paperwork, so submitting patches myself is not really productive. Manfred Harald
Re: testsuite: missing or wrong dg-* directives?
Le 14/01/2013 23:16, Harald Anlauf a écrit : Attached there is a partial patch for the obvious parts, plus other missed cases (missing options). No failures, just a few more passes from the fixed dg-do run's. Thanks, applied as revision 195217. Mikael
Re: testsuite: missing or wrong dg-* directives?
On 01/14/13 00:10, Manfred Schwarb wrote:
Am 13.01.2013 21:30, schrieb Harald Anlauf:
On 01/12/13 22:02, Mikael Morin wrote:
Le 08/01/2013 22:32, Harald Anlauf a écrit :
On 12/28/12 21:49, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Hello all,
is there a default directive that is assumed when the testsuite is
run?
Running an "fgrep -L" on the fortran testsuite, I found several files
that are missing either dg-do compile or run.
I also found a funny typo in gomp/appendix-a/a.11.2.f90
! { do-do compile }
There are several other oddities: d_g-final, braces have to be separated
by spaces.
Looking at the generated dump, tt appears that the occurence of
"d_g-final" is just some left-over junk and can be removed safely,
see below. Maybe the author (Tobias B.) knows?
Not sure about the double braces in lto, I guess they act simply as
single braces.
class_array_10.f03:! { dg-do compile}
coarray_lib_token_4.f90:! { d_g-final { scan-tree-dump-times "bar
\\(&parm.\[0-9\]+, caf_token.\[0-9\]+, \\(\\(integer\\(kind=.\\)
parm.\[0-9\]+.data - \\(integer\\(kind=.\\)\\) x.\[0-9\]+\\) \\+
caf_offset.\[0-9\]+\\);" 1 "original" } }
continuation_9.f90:! { dg-warning "not allowed by itself in line 3" ""
{target "*-*-*"} 0 }
continuation_9.f90:! { dg-warning "not allowed by itself in line 4" ""
{target "*-*-*"} 0 }
continuation_9.f90:! { dg-warning "not allowed by itself in line 5" ""
{target "*-*-*"} 0 }
extends_11.f03:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "
+recruit\\.service\\.education\\.person\\.ss =" 8 "original"} }
lto/20091016-1_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{-flto -g -fPIC -r -nostdlib}
{-O -flto -g -fPIC -r -nostdlib}} }
lto/20100110-1_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{ -O1 -flto }} }
lto/pr41521_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{-g -flto} {-g -O -flto}} }
lto/pr46036_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{ -O -flto -ftree-vectorize }} }
lto/pr46629_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{ -O2 -flto -ftree-vectorize
-march=x86-64 }} { target i?86-*-* x86_64-*-* } }
lto/pr46629_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{ -O2 -flto -ftree-vectorize }} }
lto/pr46911_0.f:! { dg-lto-options {{ -O2 -flto -g }} }
lto/pr47839_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{ -g -flto }} }
move_alloc_13.f90:! { dg-do run}
structure_constructor_11.f90:! { dg-do run}
tab_continuation.f:! { dg-warning "Nonconforming tab character in column
1 of line 10" "Nonconforming tab" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
tab_continuation.f:! { dg-warning "Nonconforming tab character in column
1 of line 11" "Nonconforming tab" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
tab_continuation.f:! { dg-warning "Nonconforming tab character in column
1 of line 8" "Nonconforming tab" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
tab_continuation.f:! { dg-warning "Nonconforming tab character in column
1 of line 9" "Nonconforming tab" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
vect/vect-2.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access
forced using versioning." 3 "vect" {target { vect_no_align || { { !
vector_alignment_reachable } && { ! vect_hw_misalign } } } } } }
vect/vect-3.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access
forced using peeling" 1 "vect" { xfail { vect_no_align || {!
vector_alignment_reachable}} } } }
vect/vect-3.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access
forced using versioning" 1 "vect" { target { {! vect_no_align} && { {!
vector_alignment_reachable} && {! vect_hw_misalign} } } } } }
vect/vect-3.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an
unaligned access" 1 "vect" { xfail { { vect_no_align } || { !
vector_alignment_reachable} } } } }
vect/vect-3.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an
unaligned access" 2 "vect" { target { {! vect_no_align} && { {!
vector_alignment_reachable} && {! vect_hw_misalign} } } } } }
vect/vect-4.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access
forced using peeling" 1 "vect" { xfail { { vect_no_align } || {!
vector_alignment_reachable} } } } }
vect/vect-4.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an
unaligned access" 1 "vect" { xfail { { vect_no_align } || {!
vector_alignment_reachable} } } } }
vect/vect-4.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an
unaligned access" 2 "vect" { target { {! vector_alignment_reachable} &&
{! vect_hw_misalign} } } } }
vect/vect-5.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access
forced using peeling" 1 "vect" { xfail { vect_no_align || {!
vector_alignment_reachable} } } } }
vect/vect-5.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access
forced using versioning." 1 "vect" { target { {!
vector_alignment_reachable} && {! vect_hw_misalign} } } } }
warning-directive-2.F90:! { dg-message "some warnings being treated as
errors" "" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
cheers,
Manfred
Attached there is a partial patch for the obvious parts, plus other
missed cases (missing options). No failures, just a few more passes
from the fixed dg-do run's.
2013-01-14 Manfred Schwarb
Harald Anlauf
* gfortran.dg/bounds_check_4.f90: Add dg-options "-fbounds-check".
* gfortran.dg/bounds_check_5.f90: Likewise.
* gfort
Re: testsuite: missing or wrong dg-* directives?
On Jan 14, 2013, at 6:23 AM, Mikael Morin wrote:
> Le 14/01/2013 00:37, Manfred Schwarb a écrit :
>> Am 14.01.2013 00:10, schrieb Manfred Schwarb:
>>>
>>> There are several other oddities: d_g-final, braces have to be
>>> separated by spaces.
>
> Want to send a patch?
>
>>> Not sure about the double braces in lto, I guess they act simply as
>>> single braces.
>
> I don't know, you may ask a testsuite maintainer, or the author. It is
> unlikely though that the author made a typo at the opening brace _and_ at the
> closing one.
Yeah… A quick check of the _documentation_ (a terrible thing to waste):
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.5.4/gccint/LTO-Testing.html
{ dg-lto-options { { options } [{ options }] } [{ target selector }]}
This directive provides a list of one or more sets of compiler options to
override LTO_OPTIONS. Each test will be compiled and run with each of these
sets of options.
Re: testsuite: missing or wrong dg-* directives?
Le 14/01/2013 00:37, Manfred Schwarb a écrit : Am 14.01.2013 00:10, schrieb Manfred Schwarb: There are several other oddities: d_g-final, braces have to be separated by spaces. Want to send a patch? Not sure about the double braces in lto, I guess they act simply as single braces. I don't know, you may ask a testsuite maintainer, or the author. It is unlikely though that the author made a typo at the opening brace _and_ at the closing one. Mikael
Re: testsuite: missing or wrong dg-* directives?
Le 13/01/2013 21:30, Harald Anlauf a écrit :
On 01/12/13 22:02, Mikael Morin wrote:
Le 08/01/2013 22:32, Harald Anlauf a écrit :
On 12/28/12 21:49, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Hello all,
is there a default directive that is assumed when the testsuite is run?
Running an "fgrep -L" on the fortran testsuite, I found several files
that are missing either dg-do compile or run.
I also found a funny typo in gomp/appendix-a/a.11.2.f90
! { do-do compile }
find gfortran.dg -name "*.[fF]90" -o -name "*.[fF]" | \
xargs fgrep -w -L 'dg-do' | \
xargs head -1 -v
and manual inspection of the resulting output results in:
- Typos
[...]
- Possibly missing { dg-do run }
[...]
Mind sending patch and changelog to @gcc-patches ?
Here we go. No failures, but additional passes because of the dg-do
run's. Somebody please take care of it?
Thanks. Committed as revision 195146.
Mikael
Re: testsuite: missing or wrong dg-* directives?
Am 14.01.2013 00:10, schrieb Manfred Schwarb:
Am 13.01.2013 21:30, schrieb Harald Anlauf:
On 01/12/13 22:02, Mikael Morin wrote:
Le 08/01/2013 22:32, Harald Anlauf a écrit :
On 12/28/12 21:49, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Hello all,
is there a default directive that is assumed when the testsuite is run?
Running an "fgrep -L" on the fortran testsuite, I found several files
that are missing either dg-do compile or run.
I also found a funny typo in gomp/appendix-a/a.11.2.f90
! { do-do compile }
There are several other oddities: d_g-final, braces have to be separated by
spaces.
Not sure about the double braces in lto, I guess they act simply as single
braces.
Oh, and then there is the "dg-do run" hack (two spaces, see
cray_pointers_2.f90).
I guess the other occurrences are not intended:
default_initialization_5.f90:! { dg-do run }
io_real_boz_3.f90:! { dg-do run }
io_real_boz_4.f90:! { dg-do run }
io_real_boz_5.f90:! { dg-do run }
class_array_10.f03:! { dg-do compile}
coarray_lib_token_4.f90:! { d_g-final { scan-tree-dump-times "bar \\(&parm.\[0-9\]+,
caf_token.\[0-9\]+, \\(\\(integer\\(kind=.\\) parm.\[0-9\]+.data - \\(integer\\(kind=.\\)\\)
x.\[0-9\]+\\) \\+ caf_offset.\[0-9\]+\\);" 1 "original" } }
continuation_9.f90:! { dg-warning "not allowed by itself in line 3" "" {target
"*-*-*"} 0 }
continuation_9.f90:! { dg-warning "not allowed by itself in line 4" "" {target
"*-*-*"} 0 }
continuation_9.f90:! { dg-warning "not allowed by itself in line 5" "" {target
"*-*-*"} 0 }
extends_11.f03:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "
+recruit\\.service\\.education\\.person\\.ss =" 8 "original"} }
lto/20091016-1_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{-flto -g -fPIC -r -nostdlib} {-O
-flto -g -fPIC -r -nostdlib}} }
lto/20100110-1_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{ -O1 -flto }} }
lto/pr41521_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{-g -flto} {-g -O -flto}} }
lto/pr46036_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{ -O -flto -ftree-vectorize }} }
lto/pr46629_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{ -O2 -flto -ftree-vectorize
-march=x86-64 }} { target i?86-*-* x86_64-*-* } }
lto/pr46629_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{ -O2 -flto -ftree-vectorize }} }
lto/pr46911_0.f:! { dg-lto-options {{ -O2 -flto -g }} }
lto/pr47839_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{ -g -flto }} }
move_alloc_13.f90:! { dg-do run}
structure_constructor_11.f90:! { dg-do run}
tab_continuation.f:! { dg-warning "Nonconforming tab character in column 1 of line 10"
"Nonconforming tab" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
tab_continuation.f:! { dg-warning "Nonconforming tab character in column 1 of line 11"
"Nonconforming tab" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
tab_continuation.f:! { dg-warning "Nonconforming tab character in column 1 of line 8"
"Nonconforming tab" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
tab_continuation.f:! { dg-warning "Nonconforming tab character in column 1 of line 9"
"Nonconforming tab" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
vect/vect-2.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using
versioning." 3 "vect" {target { vect_no_align || { { ! vector_alignment_reachable }
&& { ! vect_hw_misalign } } } } } }
vect/vect-3.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using
peeling" 1 "vect" { xfail { vect_no_align || {! vector_alignment_reachable}} } } }
vect/vect-3.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using versioning" 1
"vect" { target { {! vect_no_align} && { {! vector_alignment_reachable} && {!
vect_hw_misalign} } } } } }
vect/vect-3.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 1
"vect" { xfail { { vect_no_align } || { ! vector_alignment_reachable} } } } }
vect/vect-3.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 2 "vect"
{ target { {! vect_no_align} && { {! vector_alignment_reachable} && {! vect_hw_misalign} } } } } }
vect/vect-4.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using
peeling" 1 "vect" { xfail { { vect_no_align } || {! vector_alignment_reachable} } }
} }
vect/vect-4.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 1
"vect" { xfail { { vect_no_align } || {! vector_alignment_reachable} } } } }
vect/vect-4.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 2
"vect" { target { {! vector_alignment_reachable} && {! vect_hw_misalign} } } } }
vect/vect-5.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using
peeling" 1 "vect" { xfail { vect_no_align || {! vector_alignment_reachable} } } } }
vect/vect-5.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using
versioning." 1 "vect" { target { {! vector_alignment_reachable} && {!
vect_hw_misalign} } } } }
warning-directive-2.F90:! { dg-message "some warnings being treated as errors" "" {target
"*-*-*"} 0 }
cheers,
Manfred
find gfortran.dg -name "*.[fF]90" -o -name "*.[fF]" | \
xargs fgrep -w -L 'dg-do' | \
xargs head -1 -v
and manual inspection of the resulting output results in:
- Typos
[...]
- Possibly missing { dg-do run }
[...]
Min
Re: testsuite: missing or wrong dg-* directives?
Am 13.01.2013 21:30, schrieb Harald Anlauf:
On 01/12/13 22:02, Mikael Morin wrote:
Le 08/01/2013 22:32, Harald Anlauf a écrit :
On 12/28/12 21:49, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Hello all,
is there a default directive that is assumed when the testsuite is run?
Running an "fgrep -L" on the fortran testsuite, I found several files
that are missing either dg-do compile or run.
I also found a funny typo in gomp/appendix-a/a.11.2.f90
! { do-do compile }
There are several other oddities: d_g-final, braces have to be separated by
spaces.
Not sure about the double braces in lto, I guess they act simply as single
braces.
class_array_10.f03:! { dg-do compile}
coarray_lib_token_4.f90:! { d_g-final { scan-tree-dump-times "bar \\(&parm.\[0-9\]+,
caf_token.\[0-9\]+, \\(\\(integer\\(kind=.\\) parm.\[0-9\]+.data - \\(integer\\(kind=.\\)\\)
x.\[0-9\]+\\) \\+ caf_offset.\[0-9\]+\\);" 1 "original" } }
continuation_9.f90:! { dg-warning "not allowed by itself in line 3" "" {target
"*-*-*"} 0 }
continuation_9.f90:! { dg-warning "not allowed by itself in line 4" "" {target
"*-*-*"} 0 }
continuation_9.f90:! { dg-warning "not allowed by itself in line 5" "" {target
"*-*-*"} 0 }
extends_11.f03:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "
+recruit\\.service\\.education\\.person\\.ss =" 8 "original"} }
lto/20091016-1_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{-flto -g -fPIC -r -nostdlib} {-O
-flto -g -fPIC -r -nostdlib}} }
lto/20100110-1_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{ -O1 -flto }} }
lto/pr41521_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{-g -flto} {-g -O -flto}} }
lto/pr46036_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{ -O -flto -ftree-vectorize }} }
lto/pr46629_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{ -O2 -flto -ftree-vectorize
-march=x86-64 }} { target i?86-*-* x86_64-*-* } }
lto/pr46629_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{ -O2 -flto -ftree-vectorize }} }
lto/pr46911_0.f:! { dg-lto-options {{ -O2 -flto -g }} }
lto/pr47839_0.f90:! { dg-lto-options {{ -g -flto }} }
move_alloc_13.f90:! { dg-do run}
structure_constructor_11.f90:! { dg-do run}
tab_continuation.f:! { dg-warning "Nonconforming tab character in column 1 of line 10"
"Nonconforming tab" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
tab_continuation.f:! { dg-warning "Nonconforming tab character in column 1 of line 11"
"Nonconforming tab" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
tab_continuation.f:! { dg-warning "Nonconforming tab character in column 1 of line 8"
"Nonconforming tab" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
tab_continuation.f:! { dg-warning "Nonconforming tab character in column 1 of line 9"
"Nonconforming tab" {target "*-*-*"} 0 }
vect/vect-2.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using
versioning." 3 "vect" {target { vect_no_align || { { ! vector_alignment_reachable }
&& { ! vect_hw_misalign } } } } } }
vect/vect-3.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using
peeling" 1 "vect" { xfail { vect_no_align || {! vector_alignment_reachable}} } } }
vect/vect-3.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using versioning" 1
"vect" { target { {! vect_no_align} && { {! vector_alignment_reachable} && {!
vect_hw_misalign} } } } } }
vect/vect-3.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 1
"vect" { xfail { { vect_no_align } || { ! vector_alignment_reachable} } } } }
vect/vect-3.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 2 "vect"
{ target { {! vect_no_align} && { {! vector_alignment_reachable} && {! vect_hw_misalign} } } } } }
vect/vect-4.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using
peeling" 1 "vect" { xfail { { vect_no_align } || {! vector_alignment_reachable} } }
} }
vect/vect-4.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 1
"vect" { xfail { { vect_no_align } || {! vector_alignment_reachable} } } } }
vect/vect-4.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 2
"vect" { target { {! vector_alignment_reachable} && {! vect_hw_misalign} } } } }
vect/vect-5.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using
peeling" 1 "vect" { xfail { vect_no_align || {! vector_alignment_reachable} } } } }
vect/vect-5.f90:! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using
versioning." 1 "vect" { target { {! vector_alignment_reachable} && {!
vect_hw_misalign} } } } }
warning-directive-2.F90:! { dg-message "some warnings being treated as errors" "" {target
"*-*-*"} 0 }
cheers,
Manfred
find gfortran.dg -name "*.[fF]90" -o -name "*.[fF]" | \
xargs fgrep -w -L 'dg-do' | \
xargs head -1 -v
and manual inspection of the resulting output results in:
- Typos
[...]
- Possibly missing { dg-do run }
[...]
Mind sending patch and changelog to @gcc-patches ?
Here we go. No failures, but additional passes because of the dg-do run's.
Somebody please take care of it?
Harald
2013-01-13 Harald Anlauf
* gfortran.dg/aint_anint_1.f90: Add dg-do run.
* gfortran.dg/bounds_check_4.f90: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/inquire_10.f90: L
Re: testsuite: missing or wrong dg-* directives?
On 01/12/13 22:02, Mikael Morin wrote:
Le 08/01/2013 22:32, Harald Anlauf a écrit :
On 12/28/12 21:49, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Hello all,
is there a default directive that is assumed when the testsuite is run?
Running an "fgrep -L" on the fortran testsuite, I found several files
that are missing either dg-do compile or run.
I also found a funny typo in gomp/appendix-a/a.11.2.f90
! { do-do compile }
find gfortran.dg -name "*.[fF]90" -o -name "*.[fF]" | \
xargs fgrep -w -L 'dg-do' | \
xargs head -1 -v
and manual inspection of the resulting output results in:
- Typos
[...]
- Possibly missing { dg-do run }
[...]
Mind sending patch and changelog to @gcc-patches ?
Here we go. No failures, but additional passes because of the dg-do
run's. Somebody please take care of it?
Harald
2013-01-13 Harald Anlauf
* gfortran.dg/aint_anint_1.f90: Add dg-do run.
* gfortran.dg/bounds_check_4.f90: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/inquire_10.f90: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/minloc_3.f90: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/minlocval_3.f90: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/module_double_reuse.f90: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/mvbits_1.f90: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/oldstyle_1.f90: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/pr20163-2.f: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/save_1.f90: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/scan_1.f90: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/select_char_1.f90: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/shape_4.f90: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/coarray_29_2.f90: Fix dg-do directive.
* gfortran.dg/function_optimize_10.f90: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/gomp/appendix-a/a.11.2.f90: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/used_types_17.f90: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/used_types_18.f90: Likewise.
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/oldstyle_1.f90
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/oldstyle_1.f90 (revision 195136)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/oldstyle_1.f90 (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+! { dg-do run }
integer i, j /1/, g/2/, h ! { dg-warning "" "" }
integer k, l(3) /2*2,1/ ! { dg-warning "" "" }
real pi /3.1416/, e ! { dg-warning "" "" }
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/scan_1.f90
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/scan_1.f90 (revision 195136)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/scan_1.f90 (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+! { dg-do run }
program b
integer w
character(len=2) s, t
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/aint_anint_1.f90
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/aint_anint_1.f90 (revision 195136)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/aint_anint_1.f90 (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+! { dg-do run }
program aint_anint_1
implicit none
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/gomp/appendix-a/a.11.2.f90
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/gomp/appendix-a/a.11.2.f90 (revision 195136)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/gomp/appendix-a/a.11.2.f90 (working copy)
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-! { do-do compile }
+! { dg-do compile }
SUBROUTINE A11_2(AA, BB, CC, DD, EE, FF, N)
INTEGER N
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bounds_check_4.f90
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bounds_check_4.f90 (revision 195136)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bounds_check_4.f90 (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+! { dg-do run }
subroutine foo(n,x)
implicit none
integer, intent(in) :: n
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/save_1.f90
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/save_1.f90 (revision 195136)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/save_1.f90 (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+! { dg-do run }
! { dg-options "-O2 -fno-automatic" }
subroutine foo (b)
logical b
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/coarray_29_2.f90
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/coarray_29_2.f90 (revision 195136)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/coarray_29_2.f90 (working copy)
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-! { dg-compile }
+! { dg-do compile }
! { dg-options "-fcoarray=single" }
! Requires that coarray_29.f90 has been compiled before
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr20163-2.f
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr20163-2.f (revision 195136)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr20163-2.f (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+! { dg-do run }
open(10,status="foo",err=100) ! { dg-warning "STATUS specifier in OPEN statement .* has invalid value" }
call abort
100 continue
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/minloc_3.f90
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/minloc_3.f90 (revision 195136)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/minloc_3.f90 (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+! { dg-do run }
real :: a(3
