* [testsuite] ARM test pr42093.c: thumb2 or thumb1
@ 2011-06-24 1:02 Janis Johnson
2011-06-24 13:38 ` Ramana Radhakrishnan
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Janis Johnson @ 2011-06-24 1:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-patches, Ramana Radhakrishnan
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 245 bytes --]
Test gcc.target/arm/pr42093.c, added by Ramana, requires support for
arm_thumb2 but fails for those targets. The patch for which it was
added modified support for thumb1. Should the test instead require
arm_thumb1_ok, as in this patch?
Janis
[-- Attachment #2: gcc-20110623-5 --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 563 bytes --]
2011-06-23 Janis Johnson <janisjo@codesourcery.com>
* gcc.target/arm/pr42093.c: Require thumb1, not thumb2.
Index: gcc.target/arm/pr42093.c
===================================================================
--- gcc.target/arm/pr42093.c (revision 175313)
+++ gcc.target/arm/pr42093.c (working copy)
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
/* { dg-options "-mthumb -O2" } */
-/* { dg-require-effective-target arm_thumb2_ok } */
+/* { dg-require-effective-target arm_thumb1_ok } */
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "tbb" } } */
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "tbh" } } */
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [testsuite] ARM test pr42093.c: thumb2 or thumb1
2011-06-24 1:02 [testsuite] ARM test pr42093.c: thumb2 or thumb1 Janis Johnson
@ 2011-06-24 13:38 ` Ramana Radhakrishnan
2011-07-01 9:03 ` Richard Earnshaw
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Ramana Radhakrishnan @ 2011-06-24 13:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Janis Johnson; +Cc: gcc-patches
On 24/06/11 01:40, Janis Johnson wrote:
> Test gcc.target/arm/pr42093.c, added by Ramana, requires support for
> arm_thumb2 but fails for those targets. The patch for which it was
> added modified support for thumb1. Should the test instead require
> arm_thumb1_ok, as in this patch?
No this is for a Thumb2 defect so the test is valid for Thumb2 - we
shouldn't be generating a tbb / tbh with signed offsets and that's what
was happening there.
This test I think ends up being fragile because the generation of tbb /
tbh depends on how the blocks have been laid out . It would be
interesting to try and get a test that works reliably in T2 .
cheers
Ramana
>
> Janis
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [testsuite] ARM test pr42093.c: thumb2 or thumb1
2011-06-24 13:38 ` Ramana Radhakrishnan
@ 2011-07-01 9:03 ` Richard Earnshaw
2011-07-01 19:57 ` Janis Johnson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Richard Earnshaw @ 2011-07-01 9:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ramana Radhakrishnan; +Cc: Janis Johnson, gcc-patches
On 24/06/11 14:18, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> On 24/06/11 01:40, Janis Johnson wrote:
>> Test gcc.target/arm/pr42093.c, added by Ramana, requires support for
>> arm_thumb2 but fails for those targets. The patch for which it was
>> added modified support for thumb1. Should the test instead require
>> arm_thumb1_ok, as in this patch?
>
> No this is for a Thumb2 defect so the test is valid for Thumb2 - we
> shouldn't be generating a tbb / tbh with signed offsets and that's what
> was happening there.
>
> This test I think ends up being fragile because the generation of tbb /
> tbh depends on how the blocks have been laid out . It would be
> interesting to try and get a test that works reliably in T2 .
>
> cheers
> Ramana
>
>>
>> Janis
>
>
>
Perhaps -fno-reorder-blocks could be used to make it less fragile.
R.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [testsuite] ARM test pr42093.c: thumb2 or thumb1
2011-07-01 9:03 ` Richard Earnshaw
@ 2011-07-01 19:57 ` Janis Johnson
2011-07-04 9:27 ` Richard Earnshaw
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Janis Johnson @ 2011-07-01 19:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Earnshaw; +Cc: Ramana Radhakrishnan, gcc-patches
On 07/01/2011 02:02 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 24/06/11 14:18, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>> On 24/06/11 01:40, Janis Johnson wrote:
>>> Test gcc.target/arm/pr42093.c, added by Ramana, requires support for
>>> arm_thumb2 but fails for those targets. The patch for which it was
>>> added modified support for thumb1. Should the test instead require
>>> arm_thumb1_ok, as in this patch?
>>
>> No this is for a Thumb2 defect so the test is valid for Thumb2 - we
>> shouldn't be generating a tbb / tbh with signed offsets and that's what
>> was happening there.
>>
>> This test I think ends up being fragile because the generation of tbb /
>> tbh depends on how the blocks have been laid out . It would be
>> interesting to try and get a test that works reliably in T2 .
>>
>> cheers
>> Ramana
>>
>>>
>>> Janis
>>
>>
>>
> Perhaps -fno-reorder-blocks could be used to make it less fragile.
>
> R.
>
It passes for all thumb2 targets with that option.
Janis
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [testsuite] ARM test pr42093.c: thumb2 or thumb1
2011-07-01 19:57 ` Janis Johnson
@ 2011-07-04 9:27 ` Richard Earnshaw
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Richard Earnshaw @ 2011-07-04 9:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Janis Johnson; +Cc: Ramana Radhakrishnan, gcc-patches
On 01/07/11 20:56, Janis Johnson wrote:
> On 07/01/2011 02:02 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> On 24/06/11 14:18, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>>> On 24/06/11 01:40, Janis Johnson wrote:
>>>> Test gcc.target/arm/pr42093.c, added by Ramana, requires support for
>>>> arm_thumb2 but fails for those targets. The patch for which it was
>>>> added modified support for thumb1. Should the test instead require
>>>> arm_thumb1_ok, as in this patch?
>>>
>>> No this is for a Thumb2 defect so the test is valid for Thumb2 - we
>>> shouldn't be generating a tbb / tbh with signed offsets and that's what
>>> was happening there.
>>>
>>> This test I think ends up being fragile because the generation of tbb /
>>> tbh depends on how the blocks have been laid out . It would be
>>> interesting to try and get a test that works reliably in T2 .
>>>
>>> cheers
>>> Ramana
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Janis
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Perhaps -fno-reorder-blocks could be used to make it less fragile.
>>
>> R.
>>
>
> It passes for all thumb2 targets with that option.
>
> Janis
>
>
>
Ok, so consider a patch to use that option pre-approved.
R.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-07-04 9:27 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-06-24 1:02 [testsuite] ARM test pr42093.c: thumb2 or thumb1 Janis Johnson
2011-06-24 13:38 ` Ramana Radhakrishnan
2011-07-01 9:03 ` Richard Earnshaw
2011-07-01 19:57 ` Janis Johnson
2011-07-04 9:27 ` Richard Earnshaw
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).