From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id mO0OEQMnYGL+KwEAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 11:30:11 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 41DC51E15F; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 11:30:11 -0400 (EDT) Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=yWlHsBEA; dkim-atps=neutral X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RDNS_DYNAMIC,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97F6F1E15D for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 11:30:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48FD43857018 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 15:30:10 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 48FD43857018 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1650468610; bh=MCybEH1h9VGtc7ibO8uAWNh9admxrOLRpqta3akrggw=; h=To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=yWlHsBEACbU7R44PcFLr2C3pZr17mElJ2THOsM8hMecSICX4OXP5u0lc/ZXDpvzQ4 6ktORx71gRQ9qEjnm9NvFSZ5CIfNQz2XPN9qjW1IeUXa88YtAE1HyBeKqzujuKHW8x 6LlCFQDzIAQs25DhCzunCF2YzWirpd8Kxq5eTd+k= Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD1293858D1E for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 15:29:51 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org CD1293858D1E Received: from mail-wr1-f71.google.com (mail-wr1-f71.google.com [209.85.221.71]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-670-E-bHUUt_NcuHpSSnyyNGXA-1; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 11:29:50 -0400 X-MC-Unique: E-bHUUt_NcuHpSSnyyNGXA-1 Received: by mail-wr1-f71.google.com with SMTP id q4-20020adfc504000000b002079c9cc1bfso508033wrf.11 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 08:29:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:mime-version; bh=MCybEH1h9VGtc7ibO8uAWNh9admxrOLRpqta3akrggw=; b=MM4GFBGBW9JcvmMGj6iLzf30XdVBnjqFxvDxqq8WXGFpYMeOUXLJc8w2wjW1IFYF0J SL+S4Keu97fCZex51uzjZ/2ozHGT1rkFCiG00mb70f7raeTdnbG7RBXowVKr7YhpoF6D xiS2jkVwH7CB/nAFjRaSfvCXV8OSYkRftPepuvGhZsUhnYXb0jJstIB2xnejVRIrPaqZ RYcPHgnnULoAWYfuwXfpkY31BrRM2jdJnqzQC4TP53TwoSSUToBgmy2DRRzPNKcdU9LT m2dm65T9k049mBejRqeJlGJ+AkZVr3qHol1wMMlv+Wa7tH6VsqU81y+jmA0TH4CfzfKG RCqg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530h0fBDtF//FxONvyF1AjIpZO78A3ocEdVegwL2p796KbKj2bKP Lywq8DA7nqBF+3An29jgwhtlp1CAPMLH87C4/xDi6xGqHio+0lHeISrvtMpbuRzCjpTtC1tlE+m Kqwp6p5qrY6DjjErveMr2Ew== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6d50:0:b0:207:c10e:911 with SMTP id k16-20020a5d6d50000000b00207c10e0911mr16136164wri.137.1650468589176; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 08:29:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz+H9zedXfAjH8jNK/svw8Y+89CqnWoLn/j0RTDDs+2q146hNZ1UK252POg8OFoHk9fZqRFkg== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6d50:0:b0:207:c10e:911 with SMTP id k16-20020a5d6d50000000b00207c10e0911mr16136149wri.137.1650468588950; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 08:29:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (host81-136-113-48.range81-136.btcentralplus.com. [81.136.113.48]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v2-20020adf8b42000000b0020aa790a258sm157208wra.8.2022.04.20.08.29.48 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 20 Apr 2022 08:29:48 -0700 (PDT) To: "Potharla\, Rupesh" , Kevin Buettner , Kevin Buettner via Gdb-patches Subject: RE: GDB/Fortran: Support for Assumed Rank Zero. In-Reply-To: References: <20220413112753.4c6f1128@f35-zws-1> <20220414142845.281b878d@f35-zws-1> <20220415123112.697ff872@f35-zws-1> <20220418083328.5fb70540@f35-zws-1> <20220419103027.298d8ea5@f35-zws-1> Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 16:29:47 +0100 Message-ID: <87pmlbrcwk.fsf@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Andrew Burgess via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Andrew Burgess Cc: "George, Jini Susan" , "Parasuraman, Hariharan" , "Sharma, Alok Kumar" Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" "Potharla, Rupesh via Gdb-patches" writes: > [AMD Official Use Only] > > >>On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 08:33:28 -0700 >>Kevin Buettner via Gdb-patches wrote: >> >>> I'm also (still) wondering how to run the testsuite to use flang >>> instead of gfortran since it'd be nice to test to see if the >>> setup_xfail actually works. I spent just enough time looking at it >>> last week to convince myself that GDB's testing infrastructure >>> currently lacks the mechanisms to do this. However, I could be wrong, >>> so if someone knows how it's done, I'd like to learn about it... >> >>It seems that the answer is to run the test as follows: >> >>make check TESTS="gdb.fortran/assumedrank.exp" >>RUNTESTFLAGS="F90_FOR_TARGET=flang" >> >>(I thought that I had tried this last week.) >> >>When I run the above command on my Fedora 35 machine, I see: >> >># of expected passes 500 >># of unexpected failures 2503 >># of unresolved testcases 500 >> > But the command should only run assumedrank.exp testcase, looks like it ran all the tests under gdb.fortran. > > gdb summary after running assumedrank.exp with flang: > > === gdb Summary === > > # of expected passes 25 > # of expected failures 1 > >>So it seems that this test doesn't work very well with flang at the moment. >> >>That being the case, while I'm not against adding setup_xfail for clang, it >>doesn't seem all that useful due to the dismal results when testing against >>flang. >> > > > if {$test_count == 1 && [test_compiler_info {clang-*}]} { > setup_xfail "*-*-*" > fail "compiler does not support rank 0" > continue > } It is possible to call 'xfail' directly, so you could just do: xfail "compiler does not support rank 0" But I don't think that's correct really, xfail should be used when a specific test is actually being run, so we'd expect to do something like: xfail $test_name See gdb.ada/call_pn.exp for examples. I wonder if really 'unsupported' would be a better choice here - the description in the Dejagnu manual says: UNSUPPORTED There is no support for the tested case. This may mean that a conditional feature of an operating system, or of a compiler, is not implemented.... Which seems to describe this case perfectly, so: if {$test_count == 1 && [test_compiler_info {clang-*}]} { unsupported "compiler does not support rank 0" continue } Thoughts? Thanks, Andrew > > I think failing the testcase at the iteration entry and continuing to test next case is the best way to handle these dismal results. > Please let me know your suggestions/comments on this. > > Regards, > Rupesh P