Re: [PATCHES] Fix spurious failures of some tests `silent*.test' with SunStudio Fortran

[Stefano Lattarini]

On Wednesday 17 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
> 
> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 03:25:02PM CET:
> > I'm seeing this failure with SunStudio fortran compilers on
> > Debian GNU/Linux (and a similar failure on Solaris 10):
> 
> >  make[1]: Entering directory 
> > `/home/stefano/src/automake/tests/silentf77.dir/sub'
> >    F77    bar.o
> >  NOTICE: Invoking /opt/SunStudio/sunstudio12.1/prod/bin/f90 -f77 
> > -ftrap=%none -g -c -o bar.o bar.f
> 
> > The test `silent5.test' experiences a similar failure.
> > 
> > Now, these failure are clearly spurious, and easy worked around,
> > so I'd like to apply the attached patches to temporary bugfixing
> > branches, and merge them to maint.
> 
> Well, the question that comes to mind is, is there a flag with which we
> could silence the compiler?
>
Yes: `-silent'.  But testing to see if it's supported would probably
be more complex than just filtering out the offending messages... hmm...
unless we hack the configure.in to do the testing for us, which shouldn't
be hard to do.  Do you want me to try that route and see how it works?

> The user might just not want to read that NOTICE.
> 
> If not, then I'd squash the two patches together (is there a point in
> keeping them separate?),
>
Well, they fix bugs introduced in two different commits, so they should
be applied to different bug-fixing branches IMHO.

> and relax the sed pattern to kill all lines matching '^NOTICE:'.
>
I can amend both the patches to do so.

> Even that might eventually not be enough with localization,
>
I don't think that's an issue, since the SunStudio `f77' is a simple
shell script wrapping the "real" compiler.  No i18n/l10n involved.

> but at least then you aren't relying on specific compiler flags that
> might not be valid with a different compiler version, or
> different flags in $FCFLAGS or $FFLAGS.

Thanks,
  Stefano