Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

TST,BUG: Explicitly allow running tests multiple times #4918

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Oct 10, 2024

Conversation

HaoZeke
Copy link
Contributor

@HaoZeke HaoZeke commented Oct 5, 2024

These are extracted from the meson port effort [1] but are not directly tied to a build system. The main fixes involve:

  • Calling abort over stop
    • Equally well supported (in terms of language standards / compilation), but stop reports no errors (i.e. return code was always 0), and doesn't include a backtrace.
  • Changing the test write status from new to replace
    • Allows tests to run multiple times without a clean step in between

[1] https://github.com/HaoZeke/OpenBLAS/tree/mesonBasic

@HaoZeke
Copy link
Contributor Author

HaoZeke commented Oct 5, 2024

M1 failure seems unrelated..

@martin-frbg martin-frbg added this to the 0.3.29 milestone Oct 10, 2024
@martin-frbg martin-frbg merged commit 5a79446 into OpenMathLib:develop Oct 10, 2024
79 of 84 checks passed
@martin-frbg
Copy link
Collaborator

@HaoZeke any objections to replacing your call abort with a standard-conforming error stop for portability ?

@HaoZeke
Copy link
Contributor Author

HaoZeke commented Dec 5, 2024

@HaoZeke any objections to replacing your call abort with a standard-conforming error stop for portability ?

I use error stop [err code] in newer code, and it would generally be a step up.

For OpenBLAS though, I'm not sure since it is a Fortran 2008 standard feature, and might not be as widely supported. call abort is an extension (GNU, Intel) but it has been around a lot longer AFAIK.

EDIT: My bad, I hadn't had a copy of NAG lying around (licensing fees) so I had forgotten it wasn't supported. The same comment stands though, as noted in #5002 a backfill function I'd be happier with, unless we're sure OpenBLAS is always compiled with Fortran 2008 compliant compilers.

EDIT-2: Actually I'd have just recommended f90_unix_proc in #5003 (comment)

@HaoZeke HaoZeke mentioned this pull request Dec 5, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants