[PATCH, Fortran] PR fortran/60414 fix ICE was: PR 60414: Patch proposal

[Andre Vehreschild]

Hi, 

this patch is ready for commit now. Please apply. There have been no objections
against doing dg-do compile only, since my last post in August.

- Andre

On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 11:30:12 +0200
Andre Vehreschild <vehre@gmx.de> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 15:06:02 +0200
> Mikael Morin <mikael.morin@sfr.fr> wrote:
> 
> > Le 17/08/2014 14:26, Dominique Dhumieres a écrit :
> > > As Mikael said in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2014-08/msg00047.html
> > > 
> > >> the testcase should check that the code generated is actually working,
> > >> not just that the ICE disappeared. ...
> > > 
> > Well, this is for another patch where deferred character variable are
> > made acceptable as argument to unlimited polymorphic dummies.
> > Here the ICE comes (if I remember correctly) from the wrong generic
> > procedure being picked, so there is not really some new feature enabled
> > with the patch.
> 
> This is correct so far. 
> 
> > 
> > > thus I think the test should be run, i.e., '! { dg-do compile }' should
> > > be replaced with '! { dg-do run }' (I have checked that the test
> > > succeeds).
> > > 
> > I don't have a strong opinion for it, but I'm OK with that change.
> > In fact the initial test was a run one, and it has been changed to
> > compile.  Andre: why?
> 
> I was asked to move to compile only, because a run test takes a lot of time.
> I was told that the run test compiles the code multiple times with different
> optimization. This issue was deemed to be solely on the compile stage and was
> not influenced by optimization. Therefore I agreed to switch to dg-do compile.
> That the test is fine for running, too, is merely for my training of how to do
> that. My opinion is, that dg-do compile is sufficient to prove, that PR60414
> is resolved, because that is the sole purpose of the patch. I understand
> Dominique wanting to have the dg-do run, because the effectiveness of the
> patch is only shown on running the test. Is there a compromise of running a
> test, but only for one optimization stage? Then may be we can do that.
> 
> - Andre


-- 
Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pr60414_6.clg
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 426 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/attachments/20141203/e1ff0511/attachment.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pr60414_6.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 2547 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/attachments/20141203/e1ff0511/attachment.bin>