[Bug fortran/30399] testsuite failures in actual_array_constructor_2.f90 and actual_array_substr_2.f90

["paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

------- Comment #21 from paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr  2007-01-11 19:28 -------
Subject: Re:  testsuite failures in actual_array_constructor_2.f90
  and actual_array_substr_2.f90

Kaveh,
> Paul - I understand that you may not have time to actually fix the bug. 
> However something seems to have gone wrong here and we need to address it. 
> Your help in understanding where to go from here is necessary.  And I believe
> that since you were the proximate cause of the problem (by mistakenly checking
> in the patch to 4.0) you are at least morally obligatged to help us understand
> what's the best course of action, within the confines of a volunteer effort. 
> Can we agree on that?
>   
The problem is that I do not see the patch corresponding to the 
ChangeLogs for the PRs on the gcc-4_0-branch; I downloaded fortran and 
the testsuite last night. Why is that?
> Now I see several possible paths forward:
>
> 1.  Fix the actual bug.  Probably not going to happen unless someone
> volunteers.
>
> 2.  Revert just the testcases.
>
> 3.  Revert the testcases and the code changes.
>
> I think if we go with 2 or 3 we need to understand what are the ramifications
> of leaving in or taking out the fortran frontend code changes that you
> mistakenly checked in last summer.  That's where I think your help would be
> appreciated.  Can you offer an opinion on which option is safer and why? 
> "Safety" and avoiding regressions is paramount on 4.0 right now, as this branch
> should be kept very stable.
>   

However, I note that the commit to which you pointed, was made by me to 
trunk:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2006-07/msg00074.html

The commit to 4.0 that introduced the testcases was made by aoliva at 
gcc dot gnu dot org in:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2006-07/msg00077.html

 From this I deduce that (i) the "unseen hands" were not mine and that 
(ii) It is perfectly safe to revert the testcases.

Paul

This gcc-cvs entry corresponds with what I see in the 4.0 branch; ie. no 
patch


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30399