Hi, On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 7:29 PM Sandra Loosemore <san...@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On 7/27/21 5:07 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote: > > Hi Sandra, hi Thomas, hi all, > > > > @Thomas K: Comments about the following - and of course to the > > testsuite itself - are highly welcome. > > > > In my opinion, the testsuite LGTM and can be committed. > > > > @Sandra: > > - Thoughts on the directory name? (cf. below) > > - Give others/Thomas a chance to comment on this, > > before committing it. (And remove the now passing xfails.) > > Thanks for the testsuite! > > > > Regarding: > > > > * XFAILS - as discussed before, I think having some XFAILS is > > not ideal but fine, especially if the XFAIL/PASS ratio is low > > and there are plans to fix the known fails, some posted patches > > for those, and open PRs for the issues. > > > > (I think there is one patch pending review and two patches pending > > committal with some modifications by Sandra - plus several patches > > by José which still need to be reviewed.) > > > > > > * Naming of the directory + .exp file: > > ts29113/ts29113.exp > > is okay. Given that 'select rank' (in F2018 but not in TS29113) > > is also tested, there was some controversy regarding the name > > and the coverage; additionally, TS29113 is a name which is not > > immediately clear. Thus, we could use some other name like: > > c-interop/c-interop.exp > > or .... (suggestions?). > > In any case, I do not feel strong about either name. > > > > * I had a closer look at earlier versions of the testsuite, I did > > browse through the current one + looked at the diff to previous > > version, but it is big enough and the spec is complex enough that > > I have likely missed something. > > Thus: Additional reviews are highly welcome! > > Here is the current version of the testsuite. Changes since the last > version include: > > * Renaming the directory and .exp file from ts29113 -> c-interop per the > request above. There have been no additional review comments. > > * I also made it explicit that section and constraint numbers mentioned > in comments in the test cases refer to TS 29113. I considered using the > numbering from 2018 standard, but given that the standard already > renumbered things twice since the time TS 29113 was published I didn't > really see the point, as long as it is unambiguous what document is > being cited. > > * I flattened the subdirectory structure after realizing that > dg-additional-sources can't cope with relative pathnames in remote-host > testing. > > * I split up the typecodes tests (for testing that descriptors > constructed by the front end match ISO_Fortran_binding.h) to allow for > finer-grained control over xfails and dg-require-effective-target, and > added a new effective target for Fortran C_FLOAT128 support. There are > also some additional things being tested now in this group. > > The current xfails in the tests reflect the two patches I posted last > night that are still waiting for review: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-August/056382.html > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-August/056383.html > > I've been testing on x86 (both 32- and 64-bit) and powerpc64le-linux-gnu. > > I'm not quite sure I understand the expected status of this patch: are all the "expected" failures tagged as XFAIL? If yes, then there's a problem because I see lots of unresolved on aarch64/arm For instance on aarch64: /gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/c-interop/cf-descriptor-5.f90:10:19: Error: Sorry, character dummy argument 'a' at (1) with assumed length is not yet supported for procedure 'ftest' with BIND(C) attribute compiler exited with status 1 XFAIL: gfortran.dg/c-interop/cf-descriptor-5.f90 -O0 pr92482 (test for bogus messages, line 10) PASS: gfortran.dg/c-interop/cf-descriptor-5.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors) UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/c-interop/cf-descriptor-5.f90 -O0 compilation failed to produce executable /gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/c-interop/cf-out-descriptor-5.f90:9:19: Error: Sorry, character dummy argument 'a' at (1) with assumed length is not yet supported for procedure 'ftest' with BIND(C) attribute /gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/c-interop/cf-out-descriptor-5.f90:23:23: Error: Sorry, character dummy argument 'a' at (1) with assumed length is not yet supported for procedure 'ctest' with BIND(C) attribute /gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/c-interop/cf-out-descriptor-5.f90:29:23: Error: Sorry, character dummy argument 'a' at (1) with assumed length is not yet supported for procedure 'ftest' with BIND(C) attribute compiler exited with status 1 XFAIL: gfortran.dg/c-interop/cf-out-descriptor-5.f90 -O0 pr92482 (test for bogus messages, line 9) XFAIL: gfortran.dg/c-interop/cf-out-descriptor-5.f90 -O0 pr92482 (test for bogus messages, line 23) XFAIL: gfortran.dg/c-interop/cf-out-descriptor-5.f90 -O0 pr92482 (test for bogus messages, line 29) PASS: gfortran.dg/c-interop/cf-out-descriptor-5.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors) UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/c-interop/cf-out-descriptor-5.f90 -O0 compilation failed to produce executable and similar for fc-descriptor-5.f90 fc-out-descriptor-5.f90 ff-descriptor-5.f90 For typecodes-array-float128.f90 FAIL: gfortran.dg/c-interop/typecodes-array-float128.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors) Excess errors: /gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/c-interop/typecodes-array-float128-c.c:35:32: error: '__float128' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean '_Float128'? typecodes-sanity.f90 FAIL: gfortran.dg/c-interop/typecodes-sanity.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors) Excess errors: /gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/c-interop/typecodes-sanity-c.c:41:13: error: '__float128' undeclared here (not in a function); did you mean '_Float128'? typecodes-scalar-float128.f90 FAIL: gfortran.dg/c-interop/typecodes-scalar-float128.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors) Excess errors: /gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/c-interop/typecodes-scalar-float128-c.c:34:32: error: '__float128' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean '_Float128'? PR100914.f90 FAIL: gfortran.dg/PR100914.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors) Excess errors: /gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/PR100914.c:8:10: fatal error: quadmath.h: No such file or directory Can you check? Thanks Christophe > Given that Tobias already said the last version of the patch was OK, I'd > like to commit this soon, either at the same time I push the patches > above, or next week if there is some hold-up on them. If anybody wants > more time to review this first, let me know. > > -Sandra >
