[Patch, Fortran] PR87556 – for FORM TEAM also use argse.pre/post

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Patch, Fortran] PR87556 – for FORM TEAM also use argse.pre/post

Tobias Burnus
as the subject states, FORM TEAM was only using the resulting tree
expression, ignoring code which was generated before (or afterward).

I am not sure how to best convert it to a test-suite test case. For

    form team (team(this_image()), my_team2)

the old dump was:

     integer(kind=4) D.3829;

     _gfortran_caf_form_team (team (&D.3829), &my_team2, 0);

the new one is:

   {
     integer(kind=4) D.3822;

     D.3822 = _gfortran_caf_this_image (0);
     _gfortran_caf_form_team (team (&D.3822), &my_team2, 0);
   }

[Does it make sense to check for 5 "this_image (0)" calls? or for 4
"D.\[0-9\]+ = _gfortran_caf_this_image (0);" calls?]


Build and on-going regtesting on x86-64-gnu-linux.

OK for the trunk?

Tobias


pr87556.diff (3K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR87556 – for FORM TEAM also use argse.pre/post

Paul Richard Thomas
Hi Tobias,

Following our exchange off-list, I rather agree with you that a
testcase is pointless. Besides which, I do not see this regressing :-)

OK for trunk and, if you are feeling strong, 8-branch.

Thanks and welcome back.

Paul
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 at 20:46, Tobias Burnus <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> as the subject states, FORM TEAM was only using the resulting tree
> expression, ignoring code which was generated before (or afterward).
>
> I am not sure how to best convert it to a test-suite test case. For
>
>     form team (team(this_image()), my_team2)
>
> the old dump was:
>
>      integer(kind=4) D.3829;
> …
>      _gfortran_caf_form_team (team (&D.3829), &my_team2, 0);
>
> the new one is:
>
>    {
>      integer(kind=4) D.3822;
>
>      D.3822 = _gfortran_caf_this_image (0);
>      _gfortran_caf_form_team (team (&D.3822), &my_team2, 0);
>    }
>
> [Does it make sense to check for 5 "this_image (0)" calls? or for 4
> "D.\[0-9\]+ = _gfortran_caf_this_image (0);" calls?]
>
>
> Build and on-going regtesting on x86-64-gnu-linux.
>
> OK for the trunk?
>
> Tobias
>


--
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough"
- Albert Einstein