On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 11:56:02AM +0100, Janus Weil wrote: > Hi Steve, > > > Regression tested on x86_64-*-freebsd. OK to commit? > > the patch is certainly ok. > > Just my usual request for a meaningful test-case name: This one could > be class_result_4.f90. (I don't want to be pedantic about this, but in > a growing testsuite of 4000+ files, I really think it makes sense to > have meaningful names. It does have various advantages and, to be > honest, I don't see any disadvantage). >
Well, the main disadvantage is thinking up a suitable file name. I would have never arrived at class_result_4.f90 given that the fixes are in gfc_check_vardef_context() and matching_typebound_op(). Neither suggest to me that I'm dealing with a class_result. I also have no idea how to make the invalid code valid as I don't use CLASS or any Fortran OOP features, so creating a name based on what may have been intended is beyond me. The only benefit that I see is that during development one can run regression testing on a subset of the testcases via "make RUNTESTFLAGS='dg.exp=\*class\*.f90'" where filenames matched by the regex pattern are tested. But, eventually one needs to run a patch against the entire collection of tests. -- Steve
