On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 09:05:06PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > The arrays are emitted in the *.omplower dump, so I think it is much better
> > to scan-tree-dump their content
>
> That's not feasible in the general case.
Why? The arrays have easily parseable names (.omp_data_kinds.N), then they
have an initializer and you can easily write a regexp to say match 3
occurences of the firstprivate int kind constant in there.
> > if for whatever reason adding a runtime
> > testcase isn't sufficient
>
> Why should I have an execution test for something that should really be
> verified at the compiler side, at compile time? And, for example, an
Generally a runtime test can check all compilation phases, linking, runtime,
while what looks like a unit test only tests a small portion of that.
>
> > over adding further printouts and matching that.
>
> I had assumed that you'd noticed that a lot of compiler passes are
> dumping stuff that can then be scanned for. Are you insisting that GCC's
Usually the detailed messages in the dump print why certain changes are
done, or other information that is not readily available in the dump
already. I'm not convinced what you are doing brings anything that isn't
there already.
Jakub
