On 7/27/21 5:07 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Hi Sandra, hi Thomas, hi all,@Thomas K: Comments about the following - and of course to the testsuite itself - are highly welcome. In my opinion, the testsuite LGTM and can be committed. @Sandra: - Thoughts on the directory name? (cf. below) - Give others/Thomas a chance to comment on this, before committing it. (And remove the now passing xfails.) Thanks for the testsuite! Regarding: * XFAILS - as discussed before, I think having some XFAILS is not ideal but fine, especially if the XFAIL/PASS ratio is low and there are plans to fix the known fails, some posted patches for those, and open PRs for the issues. (I think there is one patch pending review and two patches pending committal with some modifications by Sandra - plus several patches by José which still need to be reviewed.) * Naming of the directory + .exp file: ts29113/ts29113.exp is okay. Given that 'select rank' (in F2018 but not in TS29113) is also tested, there was some controversy regarding the name and the coverage; additionally, TS29113 is a name which is not immediately clear. Thus, we could use some other name like: c-interop/c-interop.exp or .... (suggestions?). In any case, I do not feel strong about either name. * I had a closer look at earlier versions of the testsuite, I did browse through the current one + looked at the diff to previous version, but it is big enough and the spec is complex enough that I have likely missed something. Thus: Additional reviews are highly welcome!
Here is the current version of the testsuite. Changes since the last version include:
* Renaming the directory and .exp file from ts29113 -> c-interop per the request above. There have been no additional review comments.
* I also made it explicit that section and constraint numbers mentioned in comments in the test cases refer to TS 29113. I considered using the numbering from 2018 standard, but given that the standard already renumbered things twice since the time TS 29113 was published I didn't really see the point, as long as it is unambiguous what document is being cited.
* I flattened the subdirectory structure after realizing that dg-additional-sources can't cope with relative pathnames in remote-host testing.
* I split up the typecodes tests (for testing that descriptors constructed by the front end match ISO_Fortran_binding.h) to allow for finer-grained control over xfails and dg-require-effective-target, and added a new effective target for Fortran C_FLOAT128 support. There are also some additional things being tested now in this group.
The current xfails in the tests reflect the two patches I posted last night that are still waiting for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-August/056382.html https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-August/056383.html I've been testing on x86 (both 32- and 64-bit) and powerpc64le-linux-gnu.Given that Tobias already said the last version of the patch was OK, I'd like to commit this soon, either at the same time I push the patches above, or next week if there is some hold-up on them. If anybody wants more time to review this first, let me know.
-Sandra
ts29113-aug19.patch.gz
Description: application/gzip
