From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BA6B3858C50 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 19:54:23 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 9BA6B3858C50 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.crashing.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kernel.crashing.org Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id 22TJrMb5010562; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 14:53:22 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id 22TJrMYj010561; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 14:53:22 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: gate.crashing.org: segher set sender to segher@kernel.crashing.org using -f Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 14:53:22 -0500 From: Segher Boessenkool To: "Paul A. Clarke" Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] rs6000: Move g++.dg powerpc PR tests to g++.target Message-ID: <20220329195322.GR614@gate.crashing.org> References: <20220221211747.53681-1-pc@us.ibm.com> <20220221211747.53681-3-pc@us.ibm.com> <20220223004145.GD614@gate.crashing.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 19:54:25 -0000 Hi! On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 07:56:40PM -0600, Paul A. Clarke wrote: > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 06:41:45PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > That said... > > > > > -/* { dg-do compile { target { powerpc*-*-* && lp64 } } } */ > > > -/* { dg-skip-if "" { powerpc*-*-darwin* } } */ > > > +/* { dg-do compile { target lp64 } } */ > > > +/* { dg-skip-if "" { *-*-darwin* } } */ > > > > That skip-if is most likely cargo cult, and it's not clear why lp64 > > would be needed either (there is no comment what it is needed for, for > > example). > > I can't speak to darwin, nor have an easy way of testing on it. Same here, of course. > As for lp64, these tests fail on -m32 with: > cc1plus: error: '-mcmodel' not supported in this configuration > - g++.dg/pr65240-1.C > - g++.dg/pr65240-2.C > - g++.dg/pr65240-3.C > > '-mcmodel' is in the dg-options line for the above tests. Yes. That means the dg-options should be conditional (using dg-additional-options is convenient). Tests in *.dg should be done anywhere where that doesn't require heroics to do. This is true to a lesser extent elsewhere as well, and least true in gcc.target -- but even there still true for many tests. > The rest PASSed. Shall I remove the 'lp64' restriction for those that PASS? That is a separate change, so should be a separate commit. If it is obviously safe, please do it, yes. Thanks! > > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.target/powerpc/pr85657.C > > > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ > > > -// { dg-do compile { target { powerpc*-*-linux* } } } > > > +// { dg-do compile { target { *-*-linux* } } } > > > > A comment here would help as well. All of that is pre-existing of > > course. > > I'm not sure what such a comment would say. I suspect it was a testing issue > (only tested on Linux), but I have similar limitations, so I'm also reluctant > to enable the test for what would be untested (by me) platforms. It is obvious what it would say: the reason why this is only tested on Linux, of course! :-) I know what you are saying of course. If it isn't obviously safe, it is not for stage 4. And adding more coverage to existing tests is not very high value, not high priority at all. The biggest advantage of it would be that people will stop copying from such bad examples! Segher