Re: new test will hang 'make check-g77'

[Robert Lipe <robertl at dgii dot com>]

> [Is Kate H no longer maintainer for the Fortran tests?]

I don't know.   I'm not planning to maintain anything - I'm just
kicking in some help.

>  Robert> source, let me know and I'll pull the test case.
> 
> It should go.  I presume you don't need Craig's analysis; it's pretty

It's gone.

> I had a quick look at the others.
> 
> 971014-1.f and 980301-2.f are clearly the same case, but the latter
> has more info.  It's not something I ever remember seeing.  Is it

Good catch.  Since 971014 has been there for some time and isn't on
the list of things known to fail, something must have fixed it.

IMO, you can vote which one stays and which one goes.  You can even
make the changes yourself if you like.

> known what change fixed it?  (From chasing things in the past, I think
> this info should be recorded with tests, even if something else could
> break them later.)

This is why I'm leaning toward the liberal inclusion of testcase
information in the cases themselves.  I haven't been that liberal with
everything, trying to strike a balance between volume and completeness.


> Please remove my commentary from 980310-1.f as it got my wrist slapped

Done.

> and note that the relevant change is
> 
> Thu Dec  4 06:34:40 1997  Richard Kenner  <kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
> 
> 	* stmt.c (pushcase_range): Clean up handling of "infinite" values.

It failed on egcs 1.0.1 when I tried it last night.   Aaah.  I see the
fix in 1.0.2.

> 980310-3.f and 980310-4.f are the same bug AFAICT, showing up with
> prerelease g77-0.5.22 -fPIC -O0 on x86 redhat 4.2 like:
> 
> /tmp/cca11130.s: Assembler messages:
> /tmp/cca11130.s:238: Error: operands given don't match any known 386 instruction
> 
> 	leal .LC0@GOTOFF(%ebx),-864(%ebp)

Does anyone know how we can make those tests run with '-fPIC -O' so they'll
show up as a failure?

Dave, you get the vote which of those tests we keep.


> This is fixed in the 980302 snapshot.  If anyone knows by what, it
> might be helpful for the g77 release.  (I should know, but I can't
> remember/find the info; I suspect it was Schmidt-ten.)

I think it was this fix:

Mon Jan 19 21:57:00 1998  Richard Henderson  <rth@cygnus.com>

        * i386.md (push): Prohibit symbolic constants if flag_pic.
        (movsi+1): Likewise for move to non-register.

If you decide that either or both of these tests stay, one of us can
blow this reference into the testcases if you like.

> 980310-6.f and 980310-6.f are the same thing, probably also cured by
> the Kenner change above, but I don't think I've seen it reported
> and I'm not sure.

That's the same file twice.   Presumably you mean *-6.f  and *-8.f.

I'll let you pick which stays.

> It would probably be worth a
>  M-x delete-matching-lines ^c
> on well-commented (!) large examples to save some space.

I hate to admit this in this crowd, but I don't do emacs.   Are you
saying that the value of the space is greater than the value
of the comments?   If so, I can swing back the other way and not
retain sender information, etc.


Thanx for the help.

-- 
Robert Lipe       http://www.dgii.com/people/robertl       robertl@dgii.com