> Le 3 déc. 2014 à 18:08, Andre Vehreschild <ve...@gmx.de> a écrit : > > Hi, > > this patch is ready for commit now. Please apply. There have been no > objections > against doing dg-do compile only, since my last post in August.
Not really true, I do have objections, but I won’t fight for them. I still think the test should be dg-do run. Dominique > - Andre > > On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 11:30:12 +0200 > Andre Vehreschild <ve...@gmx.de> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 15:06:02 +0200 >> Mikael Morin <mikael.mo...@sfr.fr> wrote: >> >>> Le 17/08/2014 14:26, Dominique Dhumieres a écrit : >>>> As Mikael said in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2014-08/msg00047.html >>>> >>>>> the testcase should check that the code generated is actually working, >>>>> not just that the ICE disappeared. ... >>>> >>> Well, this is for another patch where deferred character variable are >>> made acceptable as argument to unlimited polymorphic dummies. >>> Here the ICE comes (if I remember correctly) from the wrong generic >>> procedure being picked, so there is not really some new feature enabled >>> with the patch. >> >> This is correct so far. >> >>> >>>> thus I think the test should be run, i.e., '! { dg-do compile }' should >>>> be replaced with '! { dg-do run }' (I have checked that the test >>>> succeeds). >>>> >>> I don't have a strong opinion for it, but I'm OK with that change. >>> In fact the initial test was a run one, and it has been changed to >>> compile. Andre: why? >> >> I was asked to move to compile only, because a run test takes a lot of time. >> I was told that the run test compiles the code multiple times with different >> optimization. This issue was deemed to be solely on the compile stage and was >> not influenced by optimization. Therefore I agreed to switch to dg-do >> compile. >> That the test is fine for running, too, is merely for my training of how to >> do >> that. My opinion is, that dg-do compile is sufficient to prove, that PR60414 >> is resolved, because that is the sole purpose of the patch. I understand >> Dominique wanting to have the dg-do run, because the effectiveness of the >> patch is only shown on running the test. Is there a compromise of running a >> test, but only for one optimization stage? Then may be we can do that. >> >> - Andre > > > -- > Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de > <pr60414_6.clg><pr60414_6.patch>
