[committed] Make test names unique for a couple of goacc tests

  A couple of goacc tests do not have unique names.  This causes problems 
for the test comparison script when one of the test passes and the other 
fails -- in this scenario the test comparison script claims there is a 
regression.

This slipped through for a while because I had turned off x86_64 testing 
(others test it regularly and I was revamping the tester's hardware 
requirements).  Now that I've acquired more x86_64 resources and turned 
on native x86 testing again, it's been flagged.

This patch just adds a numeric suffix to the TODO string to disambiguate 
them.

Committed to the trunk,
Jeff
commit f75b237254f32d5be32c9d9610983b777abea633
Author: Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun Sep 19 13:31:32 2021 -0400

    [committed] Make test names unique for a couple of goacc tests
    
    gcc/testsuite
            * gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90: Make test names
            unique.
            * gfortran.dg/goacc/routine-external-level-of-parallelism-2.f:
            Likewise.
  

Hi!

On 2021-09-19T11:35:00-0600, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> A couple of goacc tests do not have unique names.

Thanks for fixing this up, and sorry, largely my "fault", I suppose.  ;-|

> This causes problems
> for the test comparison script when one of the test passes and the other
> fails -- in this scenario the test comparison script claims there is a
> regression.

So I understand correctly that this is a problem not just for actual
mixed PASS vs. FAIL (which we'd like you to report anyway!) that appear
for the same line, but also for mixed PASS vs. XFAIL?  (Because, the
latter appears to be what you're addressing with your commit here.)

> This slipped through for a while because I had turned off x86_64 testing
> (others test it regularly and I was revamping the tester's hardware
> requirements).  Now that I've acquired more x86_64 resources and turned
> on native x86 testing again, it's been flagged.

(I don't follow that argument -- these test cases should be all generic?
Anyway, not important, I guess.)

> This patch just adds a numeric suffix to the TODO string to disambiguate
> them.

So, instead of doing this manually (always error-prone!), like you've...

> Committed to the trunk,

> commit f75b237254f32d5be32c9d9610983b777abea633
> Author: Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>
> Date:   Sun Sep 19 13:31:32 2021 -0400
>
>     [committed] Make test names unique for a couple of goacc tests

> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90
> @@ -39,9 +39,9 @@ contains
>            !$acc atomic write ! ... to force 'TREE_ADDRESSABLE'.
>            y = a
>      !$acc end parallel
> -    ! { dg-note {variable 'i' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
> -    ! { dg-note {variable 'j' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
> -    ! { dg-note {variable 'a' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
> +    ! { dg-note {variable 'i' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO2" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
> +    ! { dg-note {variable 'j' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO3" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }
> +    ! { dg-note {variable 'a' in 'private' clause potentially has improper OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO4" { xfail *-*-* } l_compute$c_compute }

... etc. (also similarly in a handful of earlier commits, if I remember
correctly), why don't we do that programmatically, like in the attached
"Make sure that we get unique test names if several DejaGnu directives
refer to the same line", once and for all?  OK to push after proper
testing?


Grüße
 Thomas


-----------------
Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634 München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: Thomas Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der Gesellschaft: München; Registergericht München, HRB 106955
  

On 9/22/2021 5:03 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On 2021-09-19T11:35:00-0600, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches<gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>  wrote:
>> A couple of goacc tests do not have unique names.
> Thanks for fixing this up, and sorry, largely my "fault", I suppose.  ;-|
No worries.  I suspect there's still a ton of these lying around. It 
isn't until one of the duplicate test names starts to fail that it 
causes headaches.

>
>> This causes problems
>> for the test comparison script when one of the test passes and the other
>> fails -- in this scenario the test comparison script claims there is a
>> regression.
> So I understand correctly that this is a problem not just for actual
> mixed PASS vs. FAIL (which we'd like you to report anyway!) that appear
> for the same line, but also for mixed PASS vs. XFAIL?  (Because, the
> latter appears to be what you're addressing with your commit here.)\
Correct.  The comparison script gets awful confused when it finds two 
tests with the same name and different PASS/FAIL states.

>
>> This slipped through for a while because I had turned off x86_64 testing
>> (others test it regularly and I was revamping the tester's hardware
>> requirements).  Now that I've acquired more x86_64 resources and turned
>> on native x86 testing again, it's been flagged.
> (I don't follow that argument -- these test cases should be all generic?
> Anyway, not important, I guess.)
I'd have to dig around, but I'd guess none of the other targets have the 
appropriate bits enabled to test hte goacc stuff.
> 0001-Make-sure-that-we-get-unique-test-names-if-several-D.patch
>
>  From 6e3ae5784888be70056ccc3bb7d379fa8e7f6fc0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Thomas Schwinge<thomas@codesourcery.com>
> Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 12:42:41 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] Make sure that we get unique test names if several DejaGnu
>   directives refer to the same line
>
> 	gcc/testsuite/
> 	* lib/gcc-dg.exp (process-message): Make sure that we get unique
> 	test names.
I like it.  Though trying to warp my head around tcl/expect these days 
just makes me want to cry.    My only worry would be whether or not the 
change would confuse people.  Though I guess ultimately it'll point to 
the absolute line which disambiguates for the scripts and is still 
sufficient for humans to quickly see what went wrong.

I'd say let's get it installed and see if there's any fallout.  It 
obviously just affects the testing harness, so we have more wiggle room 
if something goes wrong.

jeff