diff mbox series

testsuite: fix scan-tree-dump patterns [PR83904,PR100297]

Message ID trinity-dc2a82bc-fc4e-44f2-bb38-38597e878fd9-1681846782121@3c-app-gmx-bs56
State Accepted
Headers
Series testsuite: fix scan-tree-dump patterns [PR83904,PR100297] |

Checks

Context Check Description
snail/gcc-patch-check success Github commit url

Commit Message

Harald Anlauf April 18, 2023, 7:39 p.m. UTC 
  Dear all,

the attached patch adjusts the scan-tree-dump patterns of the
reported testcases which likely were run in a location such
that a path in an error message showing in the tree-dump might
have accidentally matched "free" or "data", respectively.

For the testcase gfortran.dg/reshape_8.f90 I checked with a
failing gfortran-11 that the pattern is appropriate.

OK for mainline?

Thanks,
Harald

Comments

Jerry D April 19, 2023, 1:03 a.m. UTC | #1 
On 4/18/23 12:39 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> the attached patch adjusts the scan-tree-dump patterns of the
> reported testcases which likely were run in a location such
> that a path in an error message showing in the tree-dump might
> have accidentally matched "free" or "data", respectively.
> 
> For the testcase gfortran.dg/reshape_8.f90 I checked with a
> failing gfortran-11 that the pattern is appropriate.
> 
> OK for mainline?
> 
> Thanks,
> Harald
> 
Yes, OK

Thanks
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer April 19, 2023, 3:14 p.m. UTC | #2 
On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 at 03:03, Jerry D via Fortran <fortran@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> On 4/18/23 12:39 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > the attached patch adjusts the scan-tree-dump patterns of the
> > reported testcases which likely were run in a location such
> > that a path in an error message showing in the tree-dump might
> > have accidentally matched "free" or "data", respectively.
> >
> > For the testcase gfortran.dg/reshape_8.f90 I checked with a
> > failing gfortran-11 that the pattern is appropriate.
> >
> > OK for mainline?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Harald
> >
> Yes, OK

I'm certainly not opposed to this specific incarnation of such a fix.
These failures are really unpleasant :)
As proposed in https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/20220426010029.2b476337@nbbrfq/
we could add a -fno-file to suppress the assembler .file output
(whatever the prefix looks like depends on the assembler dialect). Or
we could nuke the .file directives by a sed(1), but that would
probably be cumbersome for remote targets. I don't have a better idea
than -fno-file or -ffile=foo.c .
Fixing them case-by-case does not scale all that well IMHO.

Thoughts?
Harald Anlauf April 19, 2023, 4:34 p.m. UTC | #3 
On 4/19/23 17:14, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 at 03:03, Jerry D via Fortran <fortran@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 4/18/23 12:39 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> the attached patch adjusts the scan-tree-dump patterns of the
>>> reported testcases which likely were run in a location such
>>> that a path in an error message showing in the tree-dump might
>>> have accidentally matched "free" or "data", respectively.
>>>
>>> For the testcase gfortran.dg/reshape_8.f90 I checked with a
>>> failing gfortran-11 that the pattern is appropriate.
>>>
>>> OK for mainline?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Harald
>>>
>> Yes, OK
>
> I'm certainly not opposed to this specific incarnation of such a fix.
> These failures are really unpleasant :)
> As proposed in https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/20220426010029.2b476337@nbbrfq/
> we could add a -fno-file to suppress the assembler .file output
> (whatever the prefix looks like depends on the assembler dialect). Or
> we could nuke the .file directives by a sed(1), but that would
> probably be cumbersome for remote targets. I don't have a better idea
> than -fno-file or -ffile=foo.c .
> Fixing them case-by-case does not scale all that well IMHO.
>
> Thoughts?
>

?

It wasn't the tree-dumps being at fault, it was the scan patterns.
diff mbox series

Patch

From ad7ea82929f65ef34a13dea5a0fe23d567f220e8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Harald Anlauf <anlauf@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 21:24:20 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] testsuite: fix scan-tree-dump patterns [PR83904,PR100297]

Adjust scan-tree-dump patterns so that they do not accidentally match a
valid path.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

	PR testsuite/83904
	PR fortran/100297
	* gfortran.dg/allocatable_function_1.f90: Use "__builtin_free "
	instead of the naive "free".
	* gfortran.dg/reshape_8.f90: Extend pattern from a simple "data".
---
 gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/allocatable_function_1.f90 | 2 +-
 gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/reshape_8.f90              | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/allocatable_function_1.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/allocatable_function_1.f90
index f96ebc499e8..e38953bd777 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/allocatable_function_1.f90
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/allocatable_function_1.f90
@@ -107,4 +107,4 @@  contains
     end function bar

 end program alloc_fun
-! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "free" 10 "original" } }
+! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "__builtin_free " 10 "original" } }
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/reshape_8.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/reshape_8.f90
index 01799ac5c19..56812124cb8 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/reshape_8.f90
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/reshape_8.f90
@@ -11,4 +11,4 @@  program test
   a = reshape([1,2,3,4], [2,0])
   print *, a
 end
-! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "data" 4 "original" } }
+! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-not "data..0. =" "original" } }
--
2.35.3