| Message ID | 50F31967.4050003@gmx.de |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
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 <anlauf@gmx.de> > > * 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. >
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 } >>>> >>> [...] >>> >>> 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 <anlauf@gmx.de> >> >> * 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. >> > >
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
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
On Jan 14, 2013, at 6:23 AM, Mikael Morin <mikael.morin@sfr.fr> 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.
Am 14.01.2013 20:49, schrieb Mike Stump: > On Jan 14, 2013, at 6:23 AM, Mikael Morin <mikael.morin@sfr.fr> 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. >
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(30), m real, allocatable :: c(:) integer :: e(30), n, ia(1) Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/used_types_18.f90 =================================================================== --- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/used_types_18.f90 (revision 195136) +++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/used_types_18.f90 (working copy) @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -! { dg do-compile } +! { dg-do compile } ! { dg-options "-std=f2003" } ! ! Fortran 2003 allowes TYPE without components Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/select_char_1.f90 =================================================================== --- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/select_char_1.f90 (revision 195136) +++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/select_char_1.f90 (working copy) @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ +! { dg-do run } integer function char_select (s) character(len=*), intent(in) :: s Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/minlocval_3.f90 =================================================================== --- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/minlocval_3.f90 (revision 195136) +++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/minlocval_3.f90 (working copy) @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ +! { dg-do run } real :: a(30), b(10, 10), m real, allocatable :: c(:), d(:, :) integer :: e(30), f(10, 10), n Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/function_optimize_10.f90 =================================================================== --- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/function_optimize_10.f90 (revision 195136) +++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/function_optimize_10.f90 (working copy) @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -! { do-do run } +! { dg-do run } ! PR 51858 - this used to generate wrong code. ! Original test case by Don Simons. Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/inquire_10.f90 =================================================================== --- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/inquire_10.f90 (revision 195136) +++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/inquire_10.f90 (working copy) @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ +! { dg-do run } character(len=800) :: cwd integer :: unit Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/module_double_reuse.f90 =================================================================== --- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/module_double_reuse.f90 (revision 195136) +++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/module_double_reuse.f90 (working copy) @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ +! { dg-do run } ! Test of fix for PR18878 ! ! Based on example in PR by Steve Kargl Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/mvbits_1.f90 =================================================================== --- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/mvbits_1.f90 (revision 195136) +++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/mvbits_1.f90 (working copy) @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ +! { dg-do run } ! PR 25577 ! MVBITS didn't work correctly for integer types wider than a C int ! The testcase is based on the one Dale Ranta posted in the bug report Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/shape_4.f90 =================================================================== --- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/shape_4.f90 (revision 195136) +++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/shape_4.f90 (working copy) @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ +! { dg-do run } ! PR 35001 - we need to return 0 for the shapes of ! negative extents. Test case adapted from Tobias Burnus. program main Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/used_types_17.f90 =================================================================== --- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/used_types_17.f90 (revision 195136) +++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/used_types_17.f90 (working copy) @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -! { dg do-compile } +! { dg-do compile } ! Tests the fix for PR31630, in which the association of the argument ! of 'cmp' did not work. !