> From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot....@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 09:03:50 +0200
> 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.
Not really; I guess I should have mentioned that I briefly
considered word-delimeters, but it'd match a subdirectory
named "new"; not to be unexpected in gcc builds. Matching
something that can't be in a file-path (of a gcc build) is
the only way to be sure (that I can think of).
> 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.
> >
> > 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" } }
>
