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 |
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 |
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 |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |