From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 39502 invoked by alias); 23 Mar 2016 11:32:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 39191 invoked by uid 89); 23 Mar 2016 11:32:05 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=tkachov, kyrill, sk:kyrylo, kyrylo X-HELO: foss.arm.com Received: from foss.arm.com (HELO foss.arm.com) (217.140.101.70) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 11:31:54 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CE0549; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 04:30:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.2.206.27] (e105545-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.2.206.27]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 08E613F25F; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 04:31:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH][ARM] Split out armv7ve effective target check To: Kyrill Tkachov , Ramana Radhakrishnan References: <56D6EB74.6070702@foss.arm.com> <56F270F3.8060405@foss.arm.com> <56F2795A.6010901@foss.arm.com> Cc: GCC Patches , Richard Earnshaw From: Ramana Radhakrishnan Message-ID: <56F27EA6.8010600@foss.arm.com> Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 11:41:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56F2795A.6010901@foss.arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-03/txt/msg01302.txt.bz2 On 23/03/16 11:09, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > On 23/03/16 10:33, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: >> >> On 16/03/16 15:54, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Kyrill Tkachov >>> wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I'm seeing the fails: >>>> FAIL: gcc.target/arm/atomic_loaddi_2.c scan-assembler-times ldrd\tr[0-9]+, >>>> r[0-9]+, \\[r[0-9]+\\] 1 >>>> FAIL: gcc.target/arm/atomic_loaddi_5.c scan-assembler-times ldrd\tr[0-9]+, >>>> r[0-9]+, \\[r[0-9]+\\] 1 >>>> FAIL: gcc.target/arm/atomic_loaddi_8.c scan-assembler-times ldrd\tr[0-9]+, >>>> r[0-9]+, \\[r[0-9]+\\] 1 >>>> >>>> when testing an arm multilib with /-march=armv7-a. >>>> >>>> The tests have an effective target check for armv7ve but it doesn't work >>>> because >>>> under the hood the check is the same as for armv7-a, that is it checks for >>>> the __ARM_ARCH_7A__ >>>> predefine which is set for both march values. >>>> >>>> To check for armv7ve using predefines we need to check for both >>>> __ARM_ARCH_7A__ and for the hardware >>>> integer division predefine, making armv7ve special. >>>> >>>> So this patch separates the effective target check definition from the rest >>>> of the architectures >>>> and defines it appropriately. >>>> >>>> With this patch the aforementioned tests appear UNSUPPORTED when testing the >>>> /-march=armv7-a multilib. >>>> >>>> Ok for trunk? >>> Ok, but please follow up with updating sourcebuild.texi. >> >> sourcebuild.texi shouldn't need any updating as I'm not adding a new effective >> target check, I'm just fixing the way one of the already existing ones is defined. >> >> Committed with r234420. >> > > Is it ok to also backport this to the branches? > We'll need to it for multilib testing of: > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg00924.html > and > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg00923.html > OK. Ramana > Thanks, > Kyrill > >> >>> >>> Ramana >>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Kyrill >>>> >>>> 2016-03-02 Kyrylo Tkachov >>>> >>>> * lib/target-supports.exp: Remove v7ve entry from loop >>>> creating effective target checks. >>>> (check_effective_target_arm_arch_v7ve_ok): New procedure. >>>> (add_options_for_arm_arch_v7ve): Likewise. >> >