https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69554
--- Comment #12 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #11) > (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #7) > > Please take this as a humble general suggestion: Fortran maintainers should > > enforce during patch review that any new diagnostic has a corresponding > > testcase triggering it in the testsuite. > > I think you are right, on general principles. We usually try this. > You can get a lot of test cases testing for runtime errors, because > you can only test for a single error with each test case... I don't know much about Fortran, but in C/C++, the parser tries to continue after an error, even if it has to skip whole functions. Thus, putting errors into different dummy functions allows testing many errors per file. > However, this would not have helped in this case. The problem here > was that the testsuite is lenient enough to allow for random > junk to appear between two error messages (which is understandable, > given that we only want to check for the particular error messages, > and there is a lot of stuff in between), that nobody thought of this > particular case (it only came to light when I wanted to test a new > error message with two locations). The code here should collapse those multi-line errors into: https://sourceware.org/svn/gcc/trunk/gcc/testsuite/lib/gfortran-dg.exp # [name]:[line]: Error: Some error at (1) and (2) # [name]:[line2]: Error: Some error at (1) and (2) Unless there are two location lines, the test will (should, otherwise there is a bug) fail. In my testsuite log of r230753, there is not a single test for this error. Such a testcase would have detected this bug.
