[Patch, Fortran] PR87556 – for FORM TEAM also use argse.pre/post

[Tobias Burnus]

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

[Paul Richard Thomas]

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

Post by Tobias Burnus
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)
integer(kind=4) D.3829;
…
_gfortran_caf_form_team (team (&D.3829), &my_team2, 0);
{
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