Re: testsuite dg-directives glitches
> Le 28 janv. 2019 à 14:54, Manfred Schwarb a écrit :
>
> Am 26.01.2019 um 16:14 schrieb Dominique d'Humières:
>> I have committed the following patch to the gcc-7-branch as r268294 after a
>> regtest.
>> Manfred, could you please check with your script that I did not miss
>> some test in the gcc-7 and gcc-8 branches?
>
> In the GCC-7 branch, there is
> ./pr68318_1.f90:2:! { dg-options "-O0 »
Committed as r268393
>
> and in the GCC-8 branch I found
> ./newunit_5.f90.f90:1:! { dg-do run )
Fixed and renamed to newunit_5.f90 at r268389.
Thanks, Dominique
>
> Thanks,
> Manfred
Re: testsuite dg-directives glitches
Am 26.01.2019 um 16:14 schrieb Dominique d'Humières:
> I have committed the following patch to the gcc-7-branch as r268294 after a
> regtest.
> Manfred, could you please check with your script that I did not miss
> some test in the gcc-7 and gcc-8 branches?
In the GCC-7 branch, there is
./pr68318_1.f90:2:! { dg-options "-O0"
and in the GCC-8 branch I found
./newunit_5.f90.f90:1:! { dg-do run )
Thanks,
Manfred
> TIA
>
> Dominique
> Index: gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
> ===
> --- gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog (revision 268292)
> +++ gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog (working copy)
> @@ -1,3 +1,15 @@
> +2019-01-26 Manfred Schwarb
> +
> + * gfortran.dg/array_function_5.f90
> + * gfortran.dg/class_66.f90
> + * gfortran.dg/dec_structure_12.f90
> + * gfortran.dg/dec_structure_14.f90
> + * gfortran.dg/dec_structure_15.f90
> + * gfortran.dg/extends_11.f03
> + * gfortran.dg/pr58968.f
> + * gfortran.dg/pr78259.f90
> + * gfortran.dg/debug/pr35154-stabs.f
> +
> 2019-01-24 Uroš Bizjak
>
> PR target/88998
> diff -up ../7_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_function_5.f90
> gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_function_5.f90
> --- ../7_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_function_5.f90 2017-04-21
> 16:03:35.0 +0200
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_function_5.f902019-01-25
> 12:27:40.0 +0100
> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> -! { dg-do run }
> +! { dg-do run }
> ! PR41278 internal compiler error related to matmul and transpose
> ! Test case prepared by Jerry DeLisle
> ! Original test case by Chris
> diff -up ../7_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/class_66.f90
> gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/class_66.f90
> --- ../7_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/class_66.f90 2017-12-07
> 12:49:38.0 +0100
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/class_66.f902019-01-25 12:28:06.0
> +0100
> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> -! { dg- do run }
> +! { dg-do run }
> !
> ! Test the fix for PR78641 in which an ICE occured on assignment
> ! of a class array constructor to a derived type array.
> diff -up ../7_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dec_structure_12.f90
> gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dec_structure_12.f90
> --- ../7_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dec_structure_12.f90 2017-04-21
> 16:03:35.0 +0200
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dec_structure_12.f902019-01-25
> 12:28:58.0 +0100
> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> -! { dg-do "compile" }
> +! { dg-do compile }
> ! { dg-options "-fdec-structure" }
> !
> ! Test a regression where multiple anonymous structures failed to
> diff -up ../7_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dec_structure_14.f90
> gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dec_structure_14.f90
> --- ../7_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dec_structure_14.f90 2017-04-21
> 16:03:32.0 +0200
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dec_structure_14.f902019-01-25
> 12:29:10.0 +0100
> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> - ! { dg-do "compile" }
> + ! { dg-do compile }
>! { dg-options "-fdec-structure" }
>!
>! Test that structures inside a common block do not require the
> diff -up ../7_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dec_structure_15.f90
> gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dec_structure_15.f90
> --- ../7_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dec_structure_15.f90 2017-04-21
> 16:03:29.0 +0200
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dec_structure_15.f902019-01-25
> 12:29:23.0 +0100
> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> -! { dg-do "compile" }
> +! { dg-do compile }
> ! { dg-options "" }
> !
> ! PR fortran/77584
> diff -up ../7_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/extends_11.f03
> gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/extends_11.f03
> --- ../7_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/extends_11.f03 2017-04-21
> 16:03:35.0 +0200
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/extends_11.f03 2019-01-25 12:29:59.0
> +0100
> @@ -37,4 +37,4 @@
>recruit%service%education%person%ss = 9
> end
>
> -! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "
> +recruit\\.service\\.education\\.person\\.ss =" 8 "original"} }
> +! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "
> +recruit\\.service\\.education\\.person\\.ss =" 8 "original" } }
> diff -up ../7_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr58968.f
> gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr58968.f
> --- ../7_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr58968.f2017-04-21
> 16:03:35.0 +0200
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr58968.f 2019-01-25 12:30:29.0
> +0100
> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
> C PR rtl-optimization/58968.f
> -C { dg-do compile { target powerpc*-*-*} }
> +C { dg-do compile { target powerpc*-*-* } }
> C { dg-options "-mcpu=power7 -O3 -w -ffast-math -funroll-loops" }
>SUBROUTINE MAKTABS(IW,SOME,LBOX1,LBOX2,LBOX3,NSPACE,NA,NB,
> *LBST,X,
> diff -up ../7_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr78259.f90
> gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr78259.f90
> --- ../7_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr78259.f90 2017-04-21
> 16:03:34.0 +0200
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr78259.f90 2019-01-25 12:31:01.0
>
Re: testsuite dg-directives glitches
I have committed the following patch to the gcc-7-branch as r268294 after a
regtest.
Manfred, could you please check with your script that I did not miss
some test in the gcc-7 and gcc-8 branches?
TIA
Dominique
Index: gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
===
--- gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog (revision 268292)
+++ gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,15 @@
+2019-01-26 Manfred Schwarb
+
+ * gfortran.dg/array_function_5.f90
+ * gfortran.dg/class_66.f90
+ * gfortran.dg/dec_structure_12.f90
+ * gfortran.dg/dec_structure_14.f90
+ * gfortran.dg/dec_structure_15.f90
+ * gfortran.dg/extends_11.f03
+ * gfortran.dg/pr58968.f
+ * gfortran.dg/pr78259.f90
+ * gfortran.dg/debug/pr35154-stabs.f
+
2019-01-24 Uroš Bizjak
PR target/88998
diff -up ../7_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_function_5.f90
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_function_5.f90
--- ../7_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_function_5.f90 2017-04-21
16:03:35.0 +0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_function_5.f90 2019-01-25
12:27:40.0 +0100
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-! { dg-do run }
+! { dg-do run }
! PR41278 internal compiler error related to matmul and transpose
! Test case prepared by Jerry DeLisle
! Original test case by Chris
diff -up ../7_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/class_66.f90
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/class_66.f90
--- ../7_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/class_66.f90 2017-12-07
12:49:38.0 +0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/class_66.f90 2019-01-25 12:28:06.0
+0100
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-! { dg- do run }
+! { dg-do run }
!
! Test the fix for PR78641 in which an ICE occured on assignment
! of a class array constructor to a derived type array.
diff -up ../7_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dec_structure_12.f90
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dec_structure_12.f90
--- ../7_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dec_structure_12.f90 2017-04-21
16:03:35.0 +0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dec_structure_12.f90 2019-01-25
12:28:58.0 +0100
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-! { dg-do "compile" }
+! { dg-do compile }
! { dg-options "-fdec-structure" }
!
! Test a regression where multiple anonymous structures failed to
diff -up ../7_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dec_structure_14.f90
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dec_structure_14.f90
--- ../7_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dec_structure_14.f90 2017-04-21
16:03:32.0 +0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dec_structure_14.f90 2019-01-25
12:29:10.0 +0100
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
- ! { dg-do "compile" }
+ ! { dg-do compile }
! { dg-options "-fdec-structure" }
!
! Test that structures inside a common block do not require the
diff -up ../7_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dec_structure_15.f90
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dec_structure_15.f90
--- ../7_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dec_structure_15.f90 2017-04-21
16:03:29.0 +0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dec_structure_15.f90 2019-01-25
12:29:23.0 +0100
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-! { dg-do "compile" }
+! { dg-do compile }
! { dg-options "" }
!
! PR fortran/77584
diff -up ../7_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/extends_11.f03
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/extends_11.f03
--- ../7_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/extends_11.f03 2017-04-21
16:03:35.0 +0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/extends_11.f032019-01-25 12:29:59.0
+0100
@@ -37,4 +37,4 @@
recruit%service%education%person%ss = 9
end
-! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "
+recruit\\.service\\.education\\.person\\.ss =" 8 "original"} }
+! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "
+recruit\\.service\\.education\\.person\\.ss =" 8 "original" } }
diff -up ../7_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr58968.f
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr58968.f
--- ../7_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr58968.f 2017-04-21
16:03:35.0 +0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr58968.f 2019-01-25 12:30:29.0 +0100
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
C PR rtl-optimization/58968.f
-C { dg-do compile { target powerpc*-*-*} }
+C { dg-do compile { target powerpc*-*-* } }
C { dg-options "-mcpu=power7 -O3 -w -ffast-math -funroll-loops" }
SUBROUTINE MAKTABS(IW,SOME,LBOX1,LBOX2,LBOX3,NSPACE,NA,NB,
*LBST,X,
diff -up ../7_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr78259.f90
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr78259.f90
--- ../7_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr78259.f902017-04-21
16:03:34.0 +0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr78259.f90 2019-01-25 12:31:01.0
+0100
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-! { dg-do "compile" }
+! { dg-do compile }
! { dg-options "-fdec-structure" }
!
! PR fortran/78259
--- ../7_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/debug/pr35154-stabs.f 2017-04-21
16:03:30.0 +0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/debug/pr35154-stabs.f 2019-01-25
12:28:37.0 +0100
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
C Test program for common block debugging. G. Helffrich 11 July 2004.
C {
Re: testsuite dg-directives glitches
I have committed the following patch to the gcc-8-branch as r268158 after a
regtest.
Dominique
Index: gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
===
--- gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog (revision 268156)
+++ gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,23 @@
+2019-01-22 Manfred Schwarb
+
+ * gfortran.dg/array_function_5.f90: : Fix a dg directive.
+ * gfortran.dg/class_66.f90: Likewise.
+ * gfortran.dg/dec_structure_12.f90: Likewise.
+ * gfortran.dg/dec_structure_14.f90: Likewise.
+ * gfortran.dg/dec_structure_15.f90: Likewise.
+ * gfortran.dg/dtio_31.f03: Likewise.
+ * gfortran.dg/dtio_32.f03: Likewise.
+ * gfortran.dg/extends_11.f03: Likewise.
+ * gfortran.dg/integer_plus.f90: Likewise.
+ * gfortran.dg/matmul_const.f90: Likewise.
+ * gfortran.dg/namelist_96.f90: Likewise.
+ * gfortran.dg/pdt_25.f03: Likewise.
+ * gfortran.dg/pdt_28.f03: Likewise.
+ * gfortran.dg/pr58968.f: Likewise.
+ * gfortran.dg/pr78259.f90: Likewise.
+ * gfortran.dg/debug/pr35154-stabs.f: Likewise.
+ * gfortran.dg/vect/vect-2.f90: Likewise.
+
2019-01-22 Uroš Bizjak
PR target/88938
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_function_5.f90
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_function_5.f90 (revision 268156)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_function_5.f90 (working copy)
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-! { dg-do run }
+! { dg-do run }
! PR41278 internal compiler error related to matmul and transpose
! Test case prepared by Jerry DeLisle
! Original test case by Chris
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/class_66.f90
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/class_66.f90 (revision 268156)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/class_66.f90 (working copy)
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-! { dg- do run }
+! { dg-do run }
!
! Test the fix for PR78641 in which an ICE occured on assignment
! of a class array constructor to a derived type array.
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/debug/pr35154-stabs.f
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/debug/pr35154-stabs.f (revision 268156)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/debug/pr35154-stabs.f (working copy)
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
C Test program for common block debugging. G. Helffrich 11 July 2004.
C { dg-do compile }
C { dg-skip-if "No stabs" { aarch64*-*-* mmix-*-* alpha*-*-* hppa*64*-*-*
ia64-*-* *-*-vxworks* } }
-C { dg-skip-if "No stabs" {*-*-* } { "*" } { "-gstabs" } }
+C { dg-skip-if "No stabs" { *-*-* } { "*" } { "-gstabs" } }
common i,j
common /label/l,m
i = 1
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dec_structure_12.f90
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dec_structure_12.f90 (revision 268156)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dec_structure_12.f90 (working copy)
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-! { dg-do "compile" }
+! { dg-do compile }
! { dg-options "-fdec-structure" }
!
! Test a regression where multiple anonymous structures failed to
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dec_structure_14.f90
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dec_structure_14.f90 (revision 268156)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dec_structure_14.f90 (working copy)
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
- ! { dg-do "compile" }
+ ! { dg-do compile }
! { dg-options "-fdec-structure" }
!
! Test that structures inside a common block do not require the
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dec_structure_15.f90
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dec_structure_15.f90 (revision 268156)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dec_structure_15.f90 (working copy)
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-! { dg-do "compile" }
+! { dg-do compile }
! { dg-options "" }
!
! PR fortran/77584
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dtio_31.f03
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dtio_31.f03 (revision 268156)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dtio_31.f03 (working copy)
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
! { dg-do run }
-! { dg-options="-w" }
+! { dg-options "-w" }
! PR fortran/79383
! Contributed by Walt Brainerd
module dollar_mod
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dtio_32.f03
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dtio_32.f03 (revision 268156)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dtio_32.f03 (working copy)
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
! { dg-do run }
-! { dg-options="-w" }
+! { dg-options "-w" }
! PR fortran/79383
! Contributed by Walt Brainerd
module dollar_mod
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/extends_11.f03
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/extends_11.f03(revision 268156)
+++
Re: testsuite dg-directives glitches
Am 22.01.2019 um 14:21 schrieb Dominique d'Humières: > > >> Le 22 janv. 2019 à 10:02, Manfred Schwarb a écrit : >> >> Dominique, thanks a lot. >> >> I got the request to share my script, so I attached it to this mail. >> Be aware that the script reports numerous false positives. >> As one can expect, also gcc.dg would appreciate some love… > > I had a quick look at the script and noticed that the paths are hard-coded. > Assuming the script is going to contrib/, would it be possible to replace > them with > relative ones? Some comments to explain how to use it would also be nice. > > Note that I have no idea if this script requires a copyright assignment. > I do not have an assignment, and frankly, I do not intend to get one. But I could donate this code to someone, if this helps. My expectation was that one has to edit the script anyway to adapt it to different test-suites or to fiddle with filtering. I guess this script is very far from perfect. >> >> While cleaning up the script, I found some refinements, and another >> 7 glitches, see attachment. >> >> could you take care of these as well? > > Done at r268148 after removing a missed double spaces in > gfortran.dg/spread_simplify_1.f90 > and renaming gfortran.dg.orig/newunit_5.f90.f90 to > gfortran.dg.orig/newunit_5.f90. > I guess "dg-do run" was on purpose, this is an ugly hack to execute the test only once and not iterate over the full set of options. This is often done on heavy-weight tests to save execution time. > Thanks, > > Dominique > >> >> Cheers, Manfred >> >> >> Am 21.01.2019 um 22:47 schrieb Dominique d'Humières: >>> Hi Manfred, >>> could someone please check and commit? >>> >>> Tested and committed as obvious at r268125. >>> >>> Thanks for the patch. >>> >>> Dominique >>> >>> >> >> > >
Re: testsuite dg-directives glitches
> Le 22 janv. 2019 à 10:02, Manfred Schwarb a écrit : > > Dominique, thanks a lot. > > I got the request to share my script, so I attached it to this mail. > Be aware that the script reports numerous false positives. > As one can expect, also gcc.dg would appreciate some love… I had a quick look at the script and noticed that the paths are hard-coded. Assuming the script is going to contrib/, would it be possible to replace them with relative ones? Some comments to explain how to use it would also be nice. Note that I have no idea if this script requires a copyright assignment. > > While cleaning up the script, I found some refinements, and another > 7 glitches, see attachment. > > could you take care of these as well? Done at r268148 after removing a missed double spaces in gfortran.dg/spread_simplify_1.f90 and renaming gfortran.dg.orig/newunit_5.f90.f90 to gfortran.dg.orig/newunit_5.f90. Thanks, Dominique > > Cheers, Manfred > > > Am 21.01.2019 um 22:47 schrieb Dominique d'Humières: >> Hi Manfred, >> >>> could someone please check and commit? >> >> Tested and committed as obvious at r268125. >> >> Thanks for the patch. >> >> Dominique >> >> > >
Re: testsuite dg-directives glitches
Dominique, thanks a lot.
I got the request to share my script, so I attached it to this mail.
Be aware that the script reports numerous false positives.
As one can expect, also gcc.dg would appreciate some love...
While cleaning up the script, I found some refinements, and another
7 glitches, see attachment.
could you take care of these as well?
Cheers, Manfred
Am 21.01.2019 um 22:47 schrieb Dominique d'Humières:
> Hi Manfred,
>
>> could someone please check and commit?
>
> Tested and committed as obvious at r268125.
>
> Thanks for the patch.
>
> Dominique
>
>
testsuite-test.sh
Description: application/shellscript
diff -Nupr gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg.orig/array_function_5.f90 gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_function_5.f90
--- gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg.orig/array_function_5.f90 2018-02-18 01:31:19.141695840 +0100
+++ gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_function_5.f90 2019-01-22 09:28:17.522611302 +0100
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-! { dg-do run }
+! { dg-do run }
! PR41278 internal compiler error related to matmul and transpose
! Test case prepared by Jerry DeLisle
! Original test case by Chris
diff -Nupr gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg.orig/block_16.f08 gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/block_16.f08
--- gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg.orig/block_16.f08 2018-07-05 03:11:55.672355270 +0200
+++ gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/block_16.f08 2019-01-22 09:29:52.680915714 +0100
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-! { dg-do compile )
+! { dg-do compile }
! PR82009 [F08] ICE with block construct
MODULE sparse_matrix_csx_benchmark_utils
IMPLICIT NONE
diff -Nupr gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg.orig/dec_structure_14.f90 gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dec_structure_14.f90
--- gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg.orig/dec_structure_14.f90 2016-09-15 02:30:28.726544585 +0200
+++ gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dec_structure_14.f90 2019-01-22 09:27:26.013363823 +0100
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
- ! { dg-do "compile" }
+ ! { dg-do compile }
! { dg-options "-fdec-structure" }
!
! Test that structures inside a common block do not require the
diff -Nupr gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg.orig/namelist_96.f90 gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/namelist_96.f90
--- gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg.orig/namelist_96.f90 2019-01-14 02:24:20.416290721 +0100
+++ gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/namelist_96.f90 2019-01-22 09:28:49.147377175 +0100
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-! ( dg-do run }
+! { dg-do run }
program pr88776
implicit none
character(*), parameter :: file = "pr88776.dat"
diff -Nupr gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg.orig/newunit_5.f90.f90 gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/newunit_5.f90.f90
--- gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg.orig/newunit_5.f90.f90 2018-02-18 01:31:19.177696525 +0100
+++ gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/newunit_5.f90.f90 2019-01-22 09:29:24.252227293 +0100
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-! { dg-do run )
+! { dg-do run }
! PR83525 Combination of newunit and internal unit was failing.
program main
integer :: funit
diff -Nupr gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg.orig/pdt_28.f03 gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pdt_28.f03
--- gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg.orig/pdt_28.f03 2018-02-18 01:30:44.149030094 +0100
+++ gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pdt_28.f03 2019-01-22 09:29:07.251815605 +0100
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
! { dg-do run }
-! ( dg-options "-fbounds-check" }
+! { dg-options "-fbounds-check" }
!
! Test the fix for PR83731, where the following failed on the check for the
! value of the parameter 'k'.
diff -Nupr gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg.orig/spread_simplify_1.f90 gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/spread_simplify_1.f90
--- gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg.orig/spread_simplify_1.f90 2019-01-10 01:31:01.867896509 +0100
+++ gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/spread_simplify_1.f90 2019-01-22 09:27:58.450149402 +0100
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-! { dg-do run }
+! { dg-do run }
! PR 68426 - simplification used to fail.
module m
implicit none
Re: testsuite dg-directives glitches
Hi Manfred, > could someone please check and commit? Tested and committed as obvious at r268125. Thanks for the patch. Dominique
