On 12.08.21 14:13, Hans-Peter Nilsson via Fortran wrote:
I'd call it obvious, so i dare to approve it.
OK.
thanks!
Thanks, but not coming from a testsuite or fortran
maintainer I'm not sure I can actually rely on that.
OTOH, damn the torpedoes. Committed.
If it helps: A post-commit LGTM from
> From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 09:03:50 +0200
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 00:09:21 +0200
> Hans-Peter Nilsson via Fortran wrote:
>
> > I had a file-path to sources with the substring "new" in it,
> > and (only) this test regressed compared to results from
> > another build
On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 00:09:21 +0200
Hans-Peter Nilsson via Fortran wrote:
> I had a file-path to sources with the substring "new" in it,
> and (only) this test regressed compared to results from
> another build without "new" in the name.
>
> The test does
> ! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "n
I had a file-path to sources with the substring "new" in it,
and (only) this test regressed compared to results from
another build without "new" in the name.
The test does
! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "new" 4 "original" } }
i.e. the contents of the tree-dump-file .original needs to match
t
