On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 02:36:55PM +0100, Mark Eggleston wrote:
> ChangeLog:
>
> Mark Eggleston <mark.eggles...@codethink.com>
>
> * gfortran.dg/auto_in_equiv_1.f90: Deleted.
> * gfortran.dg/auto_in_equiv_2.f90: Deleted.
> * gfortran.dg/auto_in_equiv_3.f90: Deleted.
> * gfortran.dg/automatics_in_equivalence_1.f90: New test.
> * gfortran.dg/automatics_in_equivalence_2.f90: New test.
Why the so long testcase names? Just replacing the first old test with the
new one would be IMHO better.
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/automatics_in_equivalence_2.f90
> @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
> +! { dg-do run }
> +! { dg-options "-fdec-static -frecursive -fno-automatic" }
...
1) if the test is the same, the only difference is in dg- directives,
it is easier to just include the other test.
2) if -frecursive -fno-automatic is the same as -fno-automatic, then
the test is not valid unless you use explicit recursive keyword, because
then you recurse on something that shouldn't be called recursively, right?
> +! { dg-warning "Flag '-fno-automatic' overwrites '-frecursive'" "warning" {
> target *-*-* } 0 }
I think you want one runtime test (e.g. the one you wrote in
automatics_in_equivalence_1.f90) and the rest just dg-do compile tests that
will check the original or gimple dumps to verify what happened in addition
to checking diagnostics (none) from the compilation, one testing the
default, another -fno-automatic, but in both cases without -frecursive.
Jakub
