From: Andrew Burgess <andrew.burgess@embecosm.com>
To: Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>
Cc: Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>,
Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net>,
Bernd Schmidt <bschmidt@redhat.com>,
"gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Ping: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gcc: Remove unneeded global flag.
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:40:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161130113938.GG5145@embecosm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <baecc08b-be6a-3de8-9344-29cfeffb37c0@redhat.com>
* Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> [2016-11-29 10:35:50 -0700]:
> On 11/29/2016 07:02 AM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> > * Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> [2016-11-28 15:08:46 -0700]:
> >
> > > On 11/24/2016 02:40 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> > > > * Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> [2016-11-21 13:47:09 +0100]:
> > > >
> > > > > On 20 November 2016 at 18:27, Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 19, 2016, at 1:59 PM, Andrew Burgess <andrew.burgess@embecosm.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > So, your new test fails on arm* targets:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > After a little digging I think the problem might be that
> > > > > > > -freorder-blocks-and-partition is not supported on arm.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This should be detected as the new tests include:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > /* { dg-require-effective-target freorder } */
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > however this test passed on arm as -freorder-blocks-and-partition does
> > > > > > > not issue any warning unless -fprofile-use is also passed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The patch below extends check_effective_target_freorder to check using
> > > > > > > -fprofile-use. With this change in place the tests are skipped on
> > > > > > > arm.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > All feedback welcome,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Seems reasonable, unless a -freorder-blocks-and-partition/-fprofile-use person thinks this is the wrong solution.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > As promised, I tested this patch: it makes
> > > > > gcc.dg/tree-prof/section-attr-[123].c
> > > > > unsupported on arm*, and thus they are not failing anymore :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > However, it also makes other tests unsupported, while they used to pass:
> > > > >
> > > > > gcc.dg/pr33648.c
> > > > > gcc.dg/pr46685.c
> > > > > gcc.dg/tree-prof/20041218-1.c
> > > > > gcc.dg/tree-prof/bb-reorg.c
> > > > > gcc.dg/tree-prof/cold_partition_label.c
> > > > > gcc.dg/tree-prof/comp-goto-1.c
> > > > > gcc.dg/tree-prof/pr34999.c
> > > > > gcc.dg/tree-prof/pr45354.c
> > > > > gcc.dg/tree-prof/pr50907.c
> > > > > gcc.dg/tree-prof/pr52027.c
> > > > > gcc.dg/tree-prof/va-arg-pack-1.c
> > > > >
> > > > > and failures are now unsupported:
> > > > > gcc.dg/tree-prof/cold_partition_label.c
> > > > > gcc.dg/tree-prof/section-attr-1.c
> > > > > gcc.dg/tree-prof/section-attr-2.c
> > > > > gcc.dg/tree-prof/section-attr-3.c
> > > > >
> > > > > So, maybe this patch is too strong?
> > > >
> > > > In all of the cases that used to pass the tests are compile only tests
> > > > (except for cold_partition_label, which I discuss below).
> > > >
> > > > On ARM passing -fprofile-use and -freorder-blocks-and-partition
> > > > results in a warning, and the -freorder-blocks-and-partition flag is
> > > > ignored. However, disabling -freorder-blocks-and-partition doesn't
> > > > stop any of the tests compiling, hence the passes.
> > > >
> > > > All the tests include:
> > > >
> > > > /* { dg-require-effective-target freorder } */
> > > >
> > > > which I understand to mean, the tests requires the 'freorder' feature
> > > > to be supported (which corresponds to -freorder-blocks-and-partition).
> > > >
> > > > For cold_partition_label and my new tests it's seems clear that the
> > > > lack of support for -freorder-blocks-and-partition on ARM is the cause
> > > > of the test failures.
> > > >
> > > > So, is it reasonable to give up the other tests as "unsupported"? I'd
> > > > be inclined to say yes, but I happy to rework the patch if anyone has
> > > > a suggestion for an alternative approach.
> > > It is reasonable. It's not uncommon to have to drop various tests to
> > > UNSUPPORTED, particularly things which depend on assembler/linker
> > > capabilities, the target runtime system, etc.
> >
> > OK, I'm going to take that as approval for my patch[1]. I'll wait a
> > couple of days to give people a chance to correct me, then I'll push
> > the change. This should resolve the test regressions I introduced for
> > ARM.
> I'll just go ahead and explicitly ACK this.
Committed as r243009.
Thanks,
Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-30 11:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-10 16:56 [PATCH 0/2] Remove user_defined_section_attribute global Andrew Burgess
2016-06-10 16:56 ` [PATCH 1/2] gcc: Remove unneeded global flag Andrew Burgess
2016-06-22 2:55 ` Jeff Law
2016-06-22 6:02 ` Jakub Jelinek
2016-06-29 19:33 ` Andrew Burgess
2016-09-14 13:05 ` Ping: " Andrew Burgess
2016-09-14 13:08 ` Jakub Jelinek
2016-09-15 14:30 ` Andrew Burgess
2016-10-28 15:58 ` Jeff Law
2016-10-28 16:15 ` Andrew Burgess
2016-11-03 12:01 ` Bernd Schmidt
2016-11-16 20:09 ` Andrew Burgess
2016-11-16 21:00 ` Mike Stump
2016-11-16 22:12 ` Andrew Burgess
2016-11-17 17:59 ` Jeff Law
2016-11-18 12:22 ` Christophe Lyon
2016-11-19 21:59 ` Andrew Burgess
2016-11-20 17:27 ` Mike Stump
2016-11-21 12:47 ` Christophe Lyon
2016-11-24 21:40 ` Andrew Burgess
2016-11-28 22:09 ` Jeff Law
2016-11-29 14:03 ` Andrew Burgess
2016-11-29 17:36 ` Jeff Law
2016-11-30 11:40 ` Andrew Burgess [this message]
2016-06-10 16:57 ` [PATCH 2/2] gcc: Update comment in bb-reorder.c Andrew Burgess
2016-06-22 2:59 ` Jeff Law
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20161130113938.GG5145@embecosm.com \
--to=andrew.burgess@embecosm.com \
--cc=bschmidt@redhat.com \
--cc=christophe.lyon@linaro.org \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=law@redhat.com \
--cc=mikestump@comcast.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).