[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gcc-fortran
Subject:    =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_=5BPatch=2C_Fortran=5D_PR87556_=E2=80=93_for_FORM_TEAM_also_?=	=?UTF-8?Q?use_argse=2
From:       Paul Richard Thomas <paul.richard.thomas () gmail ! com>
Date:       2018-10-16 9:11:58
Message-ID: CAGkQGi+xpTGmURLQvOJsKLhAmLEHjJ61a+27Kyix2ipyOFtoHg () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi Tobias,

Following our exchange off-list, I rather agree with you that a
testcase is pointless. Besides which, I do not see this regressing :-)

OK for trunk and, if you are feeling strong, 8-branch.

Thanks and welcome back.

Paul
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 at 20:46, Tobias Burnus <burnus@net-b.de> wrote:
>
> as the subject states, FORM TEAM was only using the resulting tree
> expression, ignoring code which was generated before (or afterward).
>
> I am not sure how to best convert it to a test-suite test case. For
>
>     form team (team(this_image()), my_team2)
>
> the old dump was:
>
>      integer(kind=4) D.3829;
> …
>      _gfortran_caf_form_team (team (&D.3829), &my_team2, 0);
>
> the new one is:
>
>    {
>      integer(kind=4) D.3822;
>
>      D.3822 = _gfortran_caf_this_image (0);
>      _gfortran_caf_form_team (team (&D.3822), &my_team2, 0);
>    }
>
> [Does it make sense to check for 5 "this_image (0)" calls? or for 4
> "D.\[0-9\]+ = _gfortran_caf_this_image (0);" calls?]
>
>
> Build and on-going regtesting on x86-64-gnu-linux.
>
> OK for the trunk?
>
> Tobias
>


-- 
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough"
- Albert Einstein
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]