Patchwork [testsuite] Don't XFAIL gfortran.dg/do_1.f90 (PR fortran/54932)

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Rainer Orth
Date March 19, 2013, 12:19 p.m.
Message ID <ydd8v5j8tvo.fsf@lokon.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/229060/
State New
Headers show

Comments

Rainer Orth - March 19, 2013, 12:19 p.m.
As discussed in PR fortran/54932, the gfortran.dg/do_1.f90 execution
tests recently stated to XPASS at all optimization levels, adding lots
of testsuite noise.  The following patch removes the xfail, allowing all
tests to pass.

Tested with the appropriate runtest invocations on
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, i386-pc-solaris2.11, and
sparc-sun-solaris2.11.  Ok for mainline and 4.8 branch?

Thanks.
	Rainer


2013-03-19  Rainer Orth  <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>

	PR fortran/54932
	* gfortran.dg/do_1.f90: Don't xfail.
Tobias Burnus - March 19, 2013, 5:19 p.m.
Rainer Orth wrote:
> As discussed in PR fortran/54932, the gfortran.dg/do_1.f90 execution
> tests recently stated to XPASS at all optimization levels, adding lots
> of testsuite noise.  The following patch removes the xfail, allowing all
> tests to pass.
>
> Tested with the appropriate runtest invocations on
> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, i386-pc-solaris2.11, and
> sparc-sun-solaris2.11.  Ok for mainline and 4.8 branch?

Removing the xfail is okay. However, I wonder whether it would be better 
to leave a reference to the PR in case the failure pops up again. As the 
code is ill-defined, the failures might pop up in the future and the 
reference can help with analysis.

OK - as is or with an updated reference to the PR. – For the branch, it 
is the RMs' call when it can be committed.

Please wait with the committal until GCC's web mail archive works again 
for gcc-cvs.

Thanks!

Tobias

> 2013-03-19  Rainer Orth  <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
>
> 	PR fortran/54932
> 	* gfortran.dg/do_1.f90: Don't xfail.
Rainer Orth - March 20, 2013, 11:36 a.m.
Tobias Burnus <burnus@net-b.de> writes:

> Rainer Orth wrote:
>> As discussed in PR fortran/54932, the gfortran.dg/do_1.f90 execution
>> tests recently stated to XPASS at all optimization levels, adding lots
>> of testsuite noise.  The following patch removes the xfail, allowing all
>> tests to pass.
>>
>> Tested with the appropriate runtest invocations on
>> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, i386-pc-solaris2.11, and
>> sparc-sun-solaris2.11.  Ok for mainline and 4.8 branch?
>
> Removing the xfail is okay. However, I wonder whether it would be better to
> leave a reference to the PR in case the failure pops up again. As the code
> is ill-defined, the failures might pop up in the future and the reference
> can help with analysis.

I prefer to leave the PR reference removed.  If the failure crops up
again, it's a simple matter of looking at the ChangeLog, svn annotate,
or bugzilla to discover the bug, if not, we keep the obsolete comment
forever.

> OK - as is or with an updated reference to the PR. – For the branch, it is
> the RMs' call when it can be committed.

Jakub, Richard?

> Please wait with the committal until GCC's web mail archive works again for
> gcc-cvs.

Done.

Thanks.
        Rainer


>> 2013-03-19  Rainer Orth  <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
>>
>> 	PR fortran/54932
>> 	* gfortran.dg/do_1.f90: Don't xfail.
Richard Guenther - March 25, 2013, 9:11 a.m.
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013, Rainer Orth wrote:

> Tobias Burnus <burnus@net-b.de> writes:
> 
> > Rainer Orth wrote:
> >> As discussed in PR fortran/54932, the gfortran.dg/do_1.f90 execution
> >> tests recently stated to XPASS at all optimization levels, adding lots
> >> of testsuite noise.  The following patch removes the xfail, allowing all
> >> tests to pass.
> >>
> >> Tested with the appropriate runtest invocations on
> >> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, i386-pc-solaris2.11, and
> >> sparc-sun-solaris2.11.  Ok for mainline and 4.8 branch?
> >
> > Removing the xfail is okay. However, I wonder whether it would be better to
> > leave a reference to the PR in case the failure pops up again. As the code
> > is ill-defined, the failures might pop up in the future and the reference
> > can help with analysis.
> 
> I prefer to leave the PR reference removed.  If the failure crops up
> again, it's a simple matter of looking at the ChangeLog, svn annotate,
> or bugzilla to discover the bug, if not, we keep the obsolete comment
> forever.
> 
> > OK - as is or with an updated reference to the PR. ? For the branch, it is
> > the RMs' call when it can be committed.
> 
> Jakub, Richard?

It's fine now.

Thanks,
Rchard.

> > Please wait with the committal until GCC's web mail archive works again for
> > gcc-cvs.
> 
> Done.
> 
> Thanks.
>         Rainer
> 
> 
> >> 2013-03-19  Rainer Orth  <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
> >>
> >> 	PR fortran/54932
> >> 	* gfortran.dg/do_1.f90: Don't xfail.
> 
>

Patch

# HG changeset patch
# Parent 1f55250777e2b41e8669c029843210c76bf9e40d
Don't XFAIL gfortran.dg/do_1.f90 (PR fortran/54932)

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/do_1.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/do_1.f90
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/do_1.f90
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/do_1.f90
@@ -1,5 +1,4 @@ 
-! { dg-do run { xfail *-*-* } }
-! XFAIL is tracked in PR 54932
+! { dg-do run }
 ! Program to check corner cases for DO statements.
 program do_1
   implicit none