On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
<rep.dot....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 01:30:29PM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
>>On Mar 13, 2012, at 9:38 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
>>> Could some of the testsuite maintainers please eyeball?
>>
>>I've eyed it, the only thing that stood out was:
>>
>>-foreach testcase [lsort [glob -nocomplain $srcdir/$subdir/*.F]] {
>>- if ![runtest_file_p $runtests $testcase] then {
>>- continue
>>- }
>>- fortran-torture $testcase
>>-}
>>-
>>-foreach testcase [lsort [glob -nocomplain $srcdir/$subdir/*.f90]] {
>>- if ![runtest_file_p $runtests $testcase] then {
>>- continue
>>- }
>>- fortran-torture $testcase
>>-}
>>
>>which, I hope does what you want.
>
> It replaces a manually unrolled loop with a loop over the
> testcase-extensions and works as expected. Or did you mean something
> else?
>>
>>Assuming you like those parts, Ok.
>
> committed as r185430.
You forgot to add fortran-modules.exp :(
That breaks final testing result it seems (at least).
Richard.
>>
>>Since it touches non-fortran, please watch for and respond to any problems it
>>might cause.
>
> Of course, as always.
>
> PS: I saw that the cleanup-tree-dump is also a bit redundant.
> When looking at e.g. gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr52578.c one would think that
> scan-tree-dump-times might be able to automagically collect which
> dumpfiles to cleanup as last step in dg-final.
>
> One could go one step further and even implicitly add the corresponding
> dg-options according to the expected scan-tree-dump files although this
> might not be worth it iff there are passes that may produce dump-files
> different to their pass name (did not look if this is possible). One
> would have to strip the pass-number off the dump-file for passes that
> are run more than once, too. Just a thought..
>
> Thanks and cheers,
