Hi! On Thu, 3 Jul 2014 13:09:57 +0200, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 01:06:48PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > On Thu, 3 Jul 2014 12:58:32 +0200, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 12:54:32PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > > Thanks Janis and Mikael for your replies (nearly a year ago...), but > > > > still my questions remain to be answered: in my understanding, the > > > > libgomp testsuite is not the place for compiler torture testing > > > > (different optimization flags and all that -- and, that is done for > > > > Fortran only; gfortran-dg-runtest), but rather, I understand the libgomp > > > > testsuite to be the place for libgomp library testing ;-), and hence I > > > > propose to remove that special casing of Fortran test cases: > > > > > > No, it is intentional that we torture test those, libgomp is the place > > > for all OpenMP runtime tests, not just for library testing. > > > > But then, the obvious question: why for Fortran only, but not for C and > > C++? > > Fortran has far more tests with arrays etc. that testing just -O0 or -O2 is > insufficient, that is typically not the case for C/C++.
OK to document as follows?
2014-07-03 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
libgomp/
* testsuite/libgomp.fortran/fortran.exp: Explain
gfortran-dg-runtest usage.
--- libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.fortran/fortran.exp
+++ libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.fortran/fortran.exp
@@ -59,7 +59,9 @@ if { $lang_test_file_found } {
append ld_library_path [gcc-set-multilib-library-path $GCC_UNDER_TEST]
set_ld_library_path_env_vars
- # Main loop.
+ # For Fortran we're doing torture testing, as Fortran has far more tests
+ # with arrays etc. that testing just -O0 or -O2 is insufficient, that is
+ # typically not the case for C/C++.
gfortran-dg-runtest $tests ""
}
Grüße,
Thomas
pgpy4Fk5exAL1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
