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

[Dominique d'Humières]

> Le 3 déc. 2014 à 18:08, Andre Vehreschild <vehre@gmx.de> a écrit :
> 
> 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.

Not really true, I do have objections, but I won’t fight for them. I still think the test should be dg-do run.

Dominique

> - 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 
> <pr60414_6.clg><pr60414_6.patch>