On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 12:22:03PM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> On 10/15/2011 11:21 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> >OK for trunk?
> >
> >2011-10-15 Steven G. Kargl<ka...@gcc.gnu.org>
> >
> > * gfortran.dg/ishft_3.f90: Update test.
>
> I am not so happy with complete test replacements. How about adding it
> as new test case?
>
Well, the old testcase is
%cat ishft_3.f90
! { dg-do compile }
program ishft_3
integer i, j
write(*,*) ishftc( 3, 2, 3 )
write(*,*) ishftc( 3, 2, i )
write(*,*) ishftc( 3, i, j )
write(*,*) ishftc( 3, 128 ) ! { dg-error "exceeds BIT_SIZE of first" }
write(*,*) ishftc( 3, 0, 128 ) ! { dg-error "exceeds BIT_SIZE of first" }
write(*,*) ishftc( 3, 0, 0 ) ! { dg-error "Invalid third argument" }
write(*,*) ishftc( 3, 3, 2 ) ! { dg-error "exceeds third argument" }
end program
1) It's misnamed. There is no testing of ishft.
2) i and j are undefined, so lines 4 and 5 are invalid.
Even if i and j were defined, there is nothing special
about those lines in that gfortran generates a function
call to a runtime routine. Note, this a "dg-do compile"
test.
3) The four dg-error strings would need to be updated to
the new error messages.
The only line that would survive is the first line, which
is covered in the updated testcase.
> >2011-10-15 Steven G. Kargl<ka...@gcc.gnu.org>
> >
> > * check.c (less_than_bitsize1): Check|shift| <= bit_size(i).
> > (gfc_check_ishftc): Check|shift| <= bit_size(i) and check
> > that size is positive.
>
> I somehow find less_than_bitsize1's
>
> + if (strncmp (arg2, "ISHFT", 5) == 0)
>
> not that elegant and would prefer another argument, which tells the
> function that it should take the absolute value of the argument;
> however, given that ISHFT seems to be the only function which allows
> negative arguments, one could also leave it.
>
In looking at the other uses of less_than_bitsize1() I
could pass arg2=NULL for ISHFT[C], and then the code
would become
if (arg2 == NULL) { /* Special case for ISHFT[C]. */
Would that be better?
--
Steve
