| Message ID | ydd8v5j8tvo.fsf@lokon.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
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.
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.
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. > >
# 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