Hi!
I know I'm late this week ;-\ -- but here is another ping.
Grüße
Thomas
On 2021-11-22T11:27:49+0100, Thomas Schwinge <tho...@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Ping.
>
>
> Grüße
> Thomas
>
>
> On 2021-11-15T15:50:58+0100, I wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> ..., and here is another ping.
>>
>>
>> Grüße
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>> On 2021-11-08T11:45:12+0100, I wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> Ping, once more.
>>>
>>>
>>> Grüße
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2021-10-14T12:12:41+0200, I wrote:
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> Ping, again.
>>>>
>>>> Commit log updated for <https://gcc.gnu.org/PR102735>
>>>> "privatization-1-compute.c results in both XFAIL and PASS".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Grüße
>>>> Thomas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2021-09-30T08:42:25+0200, I wrote:
>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>
>>>>> Ping.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2021-09-22T13:03:46+0200, I wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021-09-19T11:35:00-0600, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
>>>>>> <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> A couple of goacc tests do not have unique names.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for fixing this up, and sorry, largely my "fault", I suppose. ;-|
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This causes problems
>>>>>>> for the test comparison script when one of the test passes and the other
>>>>>>> fails -- in this scenario the test comparison script claims there is a
>>>>>>> regression.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I understand correctly that this is a problem not just for actual
>>>>>> mixed PASS vs. FAIL (which we'd like you to report anyway!) that appear
>>>>>> for the same line, but also for mixed PASS vs. XFAIL? (Because, the
>>>>>> latter appears to be what you're addressing with your commit here.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This slipped through for a while because I had turned off x86_64 testing
>>>>>>> (others test it regularly and I was revamping the tester's hardware
>>>>>>> requirements). Now that I've acquired more x86_64 resources and turned
>>>>>>> on native x86 testing again, it's been flagged.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (I don't follow that argument -- these test cases should be all generic?
>>>>>> Anyway, not important, I guess.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This patch just adds a numeric suffix to the TODO string to disambiguate
>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, instead of doing this manually (always error-prone!), like you've...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Committed to the trunk,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> commit f75b237254f32d5be32c9d9610983b777abea633
>>>>>>> Author: Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> Date: Sun Sep 19 13:31:32 2021 -0400
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [committed] Make test names unique for a couple of goacc tests
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90
>>>>>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90
>>>>>>> @@ -39,9 +39,9 @@ contains
>>>>>>> !$acc atomic write ! ... to force 'TREE_ADDRESSABLE'.
>>>>>>> y = a
>>>>>>> !$acc end parallel
>>>>>>> - ! { dg-note {variable 'i' in 'private' clause potentially has
>>>>>>> improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO" { xfail *-*-*
>>>>>>> } l_compute$c_compute }
>>>>>>> - ! { dg-note {variable 'j' in 'private' clause potentially has
>>>>>>> improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO" { xfail *-*-*
>>>>>>> } l_compute$c_compute }
>>>>>>> - ! { dg-note {variable 'a' in 'private' clause potentially has
>>>>>>> improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO" { xfail *-*-*
>>>>>>> } l_compute$c_compute }
>>>>>>> + ! { dg-note {variable 'i' in 'private' clause potentially has
>>>>>>> improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO2" { xfail
>>>>>>> *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>>>>>>> + ! { dg-note {variable 'j' in 'private' clause potentially has
>>>>>>> improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO3" { xfail
>>>>>>> *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>>>>>>> + ! { dg-note {variable 'a' in 'private' clause potentially has
>>>>>>> improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO4" { xfail
>>>>>>> *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ... etc. (also similarly in a handful of earlier commits, if I remember
>>>>>> correctly), why don't we do that programmatically, like in the attached
>>>>>> "Make sure that we get unique test names if several DejaGnu directives
>>>>>> refer to the same line", once and for all? OK to push after proper
>>>>>> testing?
>>>>>
>>>>> Attached again, for easy reference.
>>>>>
>>>>> I figure it may help if I showed an example of how this changes things;
>>>>> for the test case cited above (word-diff):
>>>>>
>>>>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line
>>>>> 40+} (test for warnings, line 39)
>>>>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line
>>>>> 41+} (test for warnings, line 22)
>>>>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line
>>>>> 42+} (test for warnings, line 39)
>>>>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line
>>>>> 43+} (test for warnings, line 22)
>>>>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line
>>>>> 44+} (test for warnings, line 39)
>>>>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line
>>>>> 45+} (test for warnings, line 22)
>>>>> XFAIL: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O TODO2 {+at
>>>>> line 50+} (test for warnings, line 29)
>>>>> XFAIL: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O TODO3 {+at
>>>>> line 51+} (test for warnings, line 29)
>>>>> XFAIL: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O TODO4 {+at
>>>>> line 52+} (test for warnings, line 29)
>>>>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O TODO {+at
>>>>> line 53+} (test for warnings, line 29)
>>>>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line
>>>>> 54+} (test for warnings, line 29)
>>>>> PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O (test for
>>>>> excess errors)
>>>>>
>>>>> Given that we now amend the 'comment' by 'at line $useline"', and given
>>>>> that only ever one DejaGnu directive may appear on one source line, all
>>>>> these output lines now must be unique. (If we wanted to, we again could
>>>>> 's%TODO[0-9]+%TODO%', reverting your change cited above.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Grüße
>>>>> Thomas
-----------------
Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634
München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: Thomas
Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der Gesellschaft: München; Registergericht
München, HRB 106955
>From 347cce092ebd954d91046804c1d2b51b24eef68b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Thomas Schwinge <tho...@codesourcery.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 12:42:41 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Make sure that we get unique test names if several DejaGnu
directives refer to the same line [PR102735]
gcc/testsuite/
PR testsuite/102735
* lib/gcc-dg.exp (process-message): Make sure that we get unique
test names.
---
gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp | 14 ++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp
index 7edd070d71d..78a6c3651ef 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp
@@ -1191,8 +1191,18 @@ proc process-message { msgproc msgprefix dgargs } {
upvar dg-messages dg-messages
if { [llength $dgargs] == 5 } {
- set num [get-absolute-line [lindex $dgargs 0] [lindex $dgargs 4]]
- set dgargs [lreplace $dgargs 4 4 $num]
+ set useline [lindex $dgargs 0]
+
+ # Resolve absolute line number.
+ set line [get-absolute-line $useline [lindex $dgargs 4]]
+ set dgargs [lreplace $dgargs 4 4 $line]
+
+ if { $line != $useline } {
+ # Make sure that we get unique test names if different USELINEs
+ # refer to the same LINE.
+ set comment "[lindex $dgargs 2] at line $useline"
+ set dgargs [lreplace $dgargs 2 2 $comment]
+ }
}
# Process the dg- directive, including adding the regular expression
--
2.33.0
