From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18885 invoked by alias); 7 Aug 2013 05:25:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 18867 invoked by uid 89); 7 Aug 2013 05:25:11 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-7.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Received: from Unknown (HELO mga02.intel.com) (134.134.136.20) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 Aug 2013 05:25:10 +0000 Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 Aug 2013 22:25:02 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 Received: from kboell-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [172.28.205.40]) ([172.28.205.40]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 Aug 2013 22:25:00 -0700 Message-ID: <5201DA2C.7070802@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 05:25:00 -0000 From: Keven Boell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Kratochvil CC: "Agovic, Sanimir" , "gdb@sourceware.org" , "Boell, Keven" Subject: Re: Variable Length Arrays (VLA) proposal References: <0377C58828D86C4588AEEC42FC3B85A7176288F9@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com> <20130702133712.GA17311@host2.jankratochvil.net> <51D56B47.9030506@linux.intel.com> <20130804193323.GB31353@host2.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20130804193323.GB31353@host2.jankratochvil.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-08/txt/msg00017.txt.bz2 Thanks for feedback. On 04.08.2013 21:33, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 14:32:07 +0200, Keven Boell wrote: >> We've created some tests for the VLA features in Fortran and C in >> advance to test our future implementation against it. We used/split >> some of your tests from archer-jankratochvil-vla and added some more >> to cover more VLA use-cases, we want to fix/enable in GDB. Maybe you >> can have a look at them to see if we agree on the feature set in >> general, which will be available to the user afterwards. >> >> You can find them in our github repository (see the last few commits): >> https://github.com/ChristophTWeinmann/GDB/tree/vla-testbase > > GIT URL: https://github.com/ChristophTWeinmann/GDB.git > >> The tests are covering only Fortran and C at the moment. > > Some of the files need CRLF->LF conversion. Done. > > >> gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/vla-datatypes.exp >> gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/vla-multi.exp >> gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/vla-ptr.exp >> gdb/testsuite/gdb.fortran/vla-alloc-assoc.exp >> gdb/testsuite/gdb.fortran/vla-datatypes.exp > > type = long [5] > (gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/vla-datatypes.exp: ptype long_vla > > Expected "long int [5]", I use gcc-4.8.1-5.fc20.x86_64. > Such minor differences for different compilers are OK and common in GDB > testsuite. > I've extended the regex to catch these cases. > >> gdb/testsuite/gdb.fortran/vla-func.exp >> gdb/testsuite/gdb.fortran/vla-ptype-sub.exp >> gdb/testsuite/gdb.fortran/vla-ptype.exp > > >> gdb/testsuite/gdb.fortran/vla-type.exp > > archer-jankratochvil-vla has some FAILs here for more compilated types, that > is a known bug of archer-jankratochvil-vla. > > > gdb.fortran/vla-value.exp > > Why isn't prepare_for_testing used here? You're right, there is no reason for not having prepare_for_testing. > > > gdb.fortran/vla.f90 > > Missing copyright header. Done. > > > I did not check it but I guess these testcases / expect strings work only with > gfortran. If you are interested it would be sure great if they worked also > with iFort. I've also checked them with ifort and it worked. However, there are some more fails but not related to the expect strings. > > > In general expect strings in testcases "\\$\\d+ = ..." are commonly simplified > to " = ..." (start of expect strings are not anchored by ^ even in gdb_test). > But it is up to the submitter, "\\$\\d+ = ..." is also fine. > > In general 'untested' call is not needed after failed prepare_for_testing. > The same applies to failed 'runto MAIN__'. > Done. > > The testcases are pre-approved for check-in. But you will also need to write > stub (just "*: New files." for everything) ChangeLog entry and post it to > gdb-patches. And if you like to check them in before the real VLA > implementation they would need KFAILs for everything (IMO not worth the work > to check in the testcases before the implementation). I agree, this doesn't make too much sense. We'll submit the tests as soon as we have the VLA implementation ready. Thanks, Keven