public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Janis Johnson <janisjo@codesourcery.com>
To: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
Cc: Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net>,
	 "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>,
	"gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [testsuite] skip ARM tests with conflicting options
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 16:13:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4DEF953B.7050801@codesourcery.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4DEF516C.7060703@arm.com>

On 06/08/2011 03:39 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 08/06/11 03:14, Janis Johnson wrote:
>> On 06/07/2011 06:25 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
>>> On Jun 7, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Janis Johnson wrote:
>>>> On 06/07/2011 02:07 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2011, Janis Johnson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Several tests in gcc.target/arm use dg-options with -mcpu=xxxx, which
>>>>>> causes compiler warnings or errors when the multilib flags include
>>>>>> -march=yyyy.  This patch causes those tests to be skipped.  It also
>>>>>> prevents gcc.target/arm/20090811-1.c from running with multilibs that
>>>>>> would override -mcpu or -mfloat-abi options specified for the test.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you should allow compatible -march options - for example, if 
>>>>> dg-options has -mcpu=cortex-a8, allow -march=armv7-a but disallow all 
>>>>> other -march options.
>>>>>
>>>> Is this one OK?
>>>
>>> Not sure if the arm people want to review this or would rather I review it...
>>>
>>> Let's give the arm folks a couple days to comment, if no objections, Ok.
>>>
>>> A point of warning, eventually, you'll discover that when a compiler defaults to the argument you want to skip, that you'll needs slightly more power to skip them.  darwin ran into this with things like -m64, and eventually had to do something like lp64.  configure options like --with-cpu=arm9 are the sort that can change the default.
>>
>> Yes, I hope to hear from ARM people.
>>
>> On ARM, the default from --with-cpu= is overridden by -march at
>> compile so it's not a problem for this particular set of tests.
>> As I said originally, this set is the tip of the iceberg and they
>> get more difficult.
>>
>> Janis
>>
>>
> 
> 
> I'm worried by this whole approach of command-line checking.  It works,
> just about, for testsuite variations set with target_list, but it won't
> work with options used to configure the compiler (eg --with-mode=thumb,
> or --with-cpu=...).  Perhaps a better approach would be a new dg- test
> that built a trivial file with all the options and disabled the test if
> that test failed for any reason.  Something like:
> 
> dg-target-compatible (target, <compile|link>, additional-opts)
> 
> The test is only performed if target matches the current target.
> 
> I'm not sure if this is something that can be easily cached (well, it
> might be possible if you could index off additional-opts and the default
> opts), so it might be that this test has to be re-run every time there
> is a test that needs it.
> 
> R.

There's a similar functionality now with effective targets that end with
"_ok"; they test with options that would be added with a later directive.
The problem is that they can't be specific enough for what the test is
looking for; arm_neon_fp16_ok, for example, currently passes when the
multilib options include -mfpu=neon, which overrides the options provided
by dg-options, and that leads to problems.

I think that a test that requires a specific option should provide that
option, but be skipped if multilib options include a conflict.  This
includes -mcpu, -mfpu, -march, -mfloat-abi, -mbig-endian, and possibly
more.  Those options override the defaults for the configuration, so we
shouldn't have to worry about the defaults.

The big question is whether such a test should be run for all multilibs
that might possibly pass the test, or only for default and for mulitlibs
that provide the same options.  There are a lot of arm tests that use
-march but pass for a great many other -march options.  In most cases
they use -march with the value for which the problem was reported.
Should those tests be run for all multilibs, with the multilib options
overriding the "defaults" for the test from dg-options, or should they
be skipped multilibs that use other values?  The answer might depend on
the individual test; maybe some should be run for a large number of
multilib options to find problems with specific ones, while others can
be limited to run just once or a few times.

Janis


  reply	other threads:[~2011-06-08 15:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-06-07 21:12 Janis Johnson
2011-06-07 21:20 ` Joseph S. Myers
2011-06-07 22:25   ` Janis Johnson
2011-06-07 23:37   ` Janis Johnson
2011-06-08  2:03     ` Mike Stump
2011-06-08  2:54       ` Janis Johnson
2011-06-08 11:47         ` Richard Earnshaw
2011-06-08 16:13           ` Janis Johnson [this message]
2011-06-08 19:34             ` Mike Stump
2011-06-08 20:51               ` Janis Johnson
2011-06-08 19:39           ` Mike Stump
2011-06-10  0:11           ` Janis Johnson
2011-06-10 10:12             ` Richard Earnshaw
2011-06-10 16:22               ` Janis Johnson

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=4DEF953B.7050801@codesourcery.com \
    --to=janisjo@codesourcery.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=joseph@codesourcery.com \
    --cc=mikestump@comcast.net \
    --cc=rearnsha@arm.com \
    /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).