On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 00:09:21 +0200
Hans-Peter Nilsson via Fortran <fort...@gcc.gnu.org> 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 "new" 4 "original" } }
> i.e. the contents of the tree-dump-file .original needs to match
> the undelimited string "new" exactly four times. Very brittle.
>
> In the dump-file, there are three lines with calls to new:
> D.908 = new ((integer(kind=4) *) data);
> integer(kind=4) * new (integer(kind=4) & data)
> static integer(kind=4) * new (integer(kind=4) &);
>
> But, there's also a line, which for me and cris-elf looked like:
> _gfortran_runtime_error_at (&"At line 46 of file
> /X/xyzzynewfrob/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/PR82376.f90"[1]{lb: 1 sz: 1},
> &"Pointer actual argument \'new\' is not associated"[1]{lb: 1 sz: 1});
> The fourth match is obviously intended to match this line, but only
> with *one* match, whereas the path can as above yield another hit.
>
> With Tcl, the regexp for matching the " " *and* the "'"
> *and* the "\" gets a bit unsightly, so I suggest just
> matching the "new" calls, which according to the comment in
> the test is the key point. You can't have a file-path with
> spaces and parentheses in a gcc build. I'm also making use
> of {} rather than "" needing one level of quoting; the "\("
> is needed because the matched string is a regexp.
>
> Ok to commit?
A wordmatch would be \mnew\M but i agree that counting calls by
{\mnew (} is fine too.
I'd call it obvious, so i dare to approve it.
OK.
thanks!
>
> testsuite:
> * gfortran.dg/PR82376.f90: Robustify match.
> ---
> gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/PR82376.f90 | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/PR82376.f90
> b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/PR82376.f90
> index 07143ab7e82e..b99779ce9d8a 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/PR82376.f90
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/PR82376.f90
> @@ -2,7 +2,8 @@
> ! { dg-options "-fdump-tree-original -fcheck=pointer" }
> !
> ! Test the fix for PR82376. The pointer check was doubling up the call
> -! to new. The fix reduces the count of 'new' from 5 to 4.
> +! to new. The fix reduces the count of 'new' from 5 to 4, or to 3, when
> +! counting only calls.
> !
> ! Contributed by José Rui Faustino de Sousa <jrfso...@gmail.com>
> !
> @@ -56,4 +57,4 @@ contains
> end subroutine set
>
> end program main_p
> -! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "new" 4 "original" } }
> +! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times { new \(} 3 "original" } }
