dg-directives: another round

[Manfred Schwarb]

Hi,

here is another round of mitigating glitches in dg directives,
this time I can offer:

./lto/pr87689_0.f:! { dg-lto-run }
./associate_48.f90:! { dg=do run }
./auto_in_equiv_1.f90:! { dg-compile }
./auto_in_equiv_3.f90:! { dg-run }
./auto_in_equiv_2.f90:! { dg-run }

could someone please check and commit?

Cheers,
Manfred

[Tobias Burnus-3]

Hi Mark,

now that "auto_in_equiv_3.f90" actually runs, one sees that it doesn't
succeed. Can you have a look? (It was added as part of your patch at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-08/msg01182.html )

FAIL: gfortran.dg/auto_in_equiv_3.f90   -O1  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/auto_in_equiv_3.f90   -O2  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/auto_in_equiv_3.f90   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/auto_in_equiv_3.f90   -O3 -g  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/auto_in_equiv_3.f90   -Os  execution test

Cheers,

Tobias


On 9/27/19 2:54 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:

> Committed as Rev. 276179. Thanks for the janitorial fixes!
>
> Tobias
>
> On 9/25/19 12:51 AM, Manfred Schwarb wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> here is another round of mitigating glitches in dg directives,
>> this time I can offer:
>>
>> ./lto/pr87689_0.f:! { dg-lto-run }
>> ./associate_48.f90:! { dg=do run }
>> ./auto_in_equiv_1.f90:! { dg-compile }
>> ./auto_in_equiv_3.f90:! { dg-run }
>> ./auto_in_equiv_2.f90:! { dg-run }
>>
>> could someone please check and commit?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Manfred

[Tobias Burnus-3]

Hi Mark, hi all,

actually, it works with "-O0" but fails with any optimization.

With "-Og", it fails with "STOP 3" while for -O1 and higher it fails
with "STOP 4". Marking the variables ad1, ad2 and ad3 as "volatile"
helps with -O1 to -O3 - but it still fails with -Og.

I think it would help to check the test case whether it really makes
sense. And if it does, consider "{ dg-options "-O0" }" or possibly
"volatile" as I think "-Og" is not used in the testsuite. – But that -Og
breaks smells odd.

Tobias

On 9/27/19 3:21 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:

>
>
> now that "auto_in_equiv_3.f90" actually runs, one sees that it doesn't
> succeed. Can you have a look? (It was added as part of your patch at
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-08/msg01182.html )
>
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/auto_in_equiv_3.f90   -O1  execution test
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/auto_in_equiv_3.f90   -O2  execution test
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/auto_in_equiv_3.f90   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
> -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions  execution test
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/auto_in_equiv_3.f90   -O3 -g  execution test
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/auto_in_equiv_3.f90   -Os  execution test
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tobias
>
>
> On 9/27/19 2:54 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>> Committed as Rev. 276179. Thanks for the janitorial fixes!
>>
>> Tobias
>>
>> On 9/25/19 12:51 AM, Manfred Schwarb wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> here is another round of mitigating glitches in dg directives,
>>> this time I can offer:
>>>
>>> ./lto/pr87689_0.f:! { dg-lto-run }
>>> ./associate_48.f90:! { dg=do run }
>>> ./auto_in_equiv_1.f90:! { dg-compile }
>>> ./auto_in_equiv_3.f90:! { dg-run }
>>> ./auto_in_equiv_2.f90:! { dg-run }
>>>
>>> could someone please check and commit?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Manfred