* [PATCH] testsuite: Make sure double-precision is supported in g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C @ 2021-08-26 15:53 Christophe Lyon 2021-09-06 7:23 ` Christophe LYON 2021-09-15 11:02 ` Richard Earnshaw 0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Christophe Lyon @ 2021-08-26 15:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-patches g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C uses an asm statement relying on double-precision FPU support, but does not make sure it is actually supported by the target. Check (__ARM_FP & 8) to ensure this. 2021-08-26 Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@foss.st.com> gcc/testsuite/ * g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C: Check __ARM_FP. --- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C index 62263c0c3b0..90d20081d78 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ /* Test to catch off-by-one errors in arm/pr-support.c. */ -#if defined (__VFP_FP__) && !defined (__SOFTFP__) +#if defined (__VFP_FP__) && !defined (__SOFTFP__) && (__ARM_FP & 8) #include <iostream> #include <stdlib.h> -- 2.25.1 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] testsuite: Make sure double-precision is supported in g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C 2021-08-26 15:53 [PATCH] testsuite: Make sure double-precision is supported in g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C Christophe Lyon @ 2021-09-06 7:23 ` Christophe LYON 2021-09-13 7:52 ` Christophe LYON 2021-09-15 11:02 ` Richard Earnshaw 1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Christophe LYON @ 2021-09-06 7:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc Patches ping? On 26/08/2021 17:53, Christophe Lyon wrote: > g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C uses an asm statement relying on > double-precision FPU support, but does not make sure it is actually > supported by the target. > Check (__ARM_FP & 8) to ensure this. > > 2021-08-26 Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@foss.st.com> > > gcc/testsuite/ > * g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C: Check __ARM_FP. > --- > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C > index 62263c0c3b0..90d20081d78 100644 > --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C > @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ > > /* Test to catch off-by-one errors in arm/pr-support.c. */ > > -#if defined (__VFP_FP__) && !defined (__SOFTFP__) > +#if defined (__VFP_FP__) && !defined (__SOFTFP__) && (__ARM_FP & 8) > > #include <iostream> > #include <stdlib.h> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] testsuite: Make sure double-precision is supported in g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C 2021-09-06 7:23 ` Christophe LYON @ 2021-09-13 7:52 ` Christophe LYON 0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Christophe LYON @ 2021-09-13 7:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc Patches ping? On 06/09/2021 09:23, Christophe LYON wrote: > ping? > > On 26/08/2021 17:53, Christophe Lyon wrote: >> g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C uses an asm statement relying on >> double-precision FPU support, but does not make sure it is actually >> supported by the target. >> Check (__ARM_FP & 8) to ensure this. >> >> 2021-08-26 Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@foss.st.com> >> >> gcc/testsuite/ >> * g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C: Check __ARM_FP. >> --- >> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C >> b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C >> index 62263c0c3b0..90d20081d78 100644 >> --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C >> @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ >> /* Test to catch off-by-one errors in arm/pr-support.c. */ >> -#if defined (__VFP_FP__) && !defined (__SOFTFP__) >> +#if defined (__VFP_FP__) && !defined (__SOFTFP__) && (__ARM_FP & 8) >> #include <iostream> >> #include <stdlib.h> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] testsuite: Make sure double-precision is supported in g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C 2021-08-26 15:53 [PATCH] testsuite: Make sure double-precision is supported in g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C Christophe Lyon 2021-09-06 7:23 ` Christophe LYON @ 2021-09-15 11:02 ` Richard Earnshaw 2021-09-15 12:26 ` Christophe LYON 1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Richard Earnshaw @ 2021-09-15 11:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christophe Lyon, gcc-patches On 26/08/2021 16:53, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote: > g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C uses an asm statement relying on > double-precision FPU support, but does not make sure it is actually > supported by the target. > Check (__ARM_FP & 8) to ensure this. > > 2021-08-26 Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@foss.st.com> > > gcc/testsuite/ > * g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C: Check __ARM_FP. > --- > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C > index 62263c0c3b0..90d20081d78 100644 > --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C > @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ > > /* Test to catch off-by-one errors in arm/pr-support.c. */ > > -#if defined (__VFP_FP__) && !defined (__SOFTFP__) > +#if defined (__VFP_FP__) && !defined (__SOFTFP__) && (__ARM_FP & 8) > > #include <iostream> > #include <stdlib.h> > Wouldn't it be better to have an alternate to the asm for the case where we only have single-precision float? Something like (untested): static void donkey () { #if __ARM_FP & 8 asm volatile ("fcpyd d9, %P0" : : "w" (1.2345) : "d9"); #else asm volatile ("fcpys s18, %P0" : : "w" (1.2345f) : "s18"); #endif throw 1; } R. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] testsuite: Make sure double-precision is supported in g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C 2021-09-15 11:02 ` Richard Earnshaw @ 2021-09-15 12:26 ` Christophe LYON 2021-09-15 12:49 ` Richard Earnshaw 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Christophe LYON @ 2021-09-15 12:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Earnshaw, gcc-patches On 15/09/2021 13:02, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > > > On 26/08/2021 16:53, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote: >> g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C uses an asm statement relying on >> double-precision FPU support, but does not make sure it is actually >> supported by the target. >> Check (__ARM_FP & 8) to ensure this. >> >> 2021-08-26 Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@foss.st.com> >> >> gcc/testsuite/ >> * g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C: Check __ARM_FP. >> --- >> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C >> b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C >> index 62263c0c3b0..90d20081d78 100644 >> --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C >> @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ >> /* Test to catch off-by-one errors in arm/pr-support.c. */ >> -#if defined (__VFP_FP__) && !defined (__SOFTFP__) >> +#if defined (__VFP_FP__) && !defined (__SOFTFP__) && (__ARM_FP & 8) >> #include <iostream> >> #include <stdlib.h> >> > > Wouldn't it be better to have an alternate to the asm for the case > where we only have single-precision float? Something like (untested): > > static void donkey () > { > #if __ARM_FP & 8 > asm volatile ("fcpyd d9, %P0" : : "w" (1.2345) : "d9"); > #else > asm volatile ("fcpys s18, %P0" : : "w" (1.2345f) : "s18"); > #endif > throw 1; > } I tried similar things but they failed on some testing configurations. Let me try your version, I'll let you know if there is any fallout. Christophe > > R. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] testsuite: Make sure double-precision is supported in g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C 2021-09-15 12:26 ` Christophe LYON @ 2021-09-15 12:49 ` Richard Earnshaw 2021-09-15 16:13 ` Christophe Lyon 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Richard Earnshaw @ 2021-09-15 12:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christophe LYON, gcc-patches On 15/09/2021 13:26, Christophe LYON via Gcc-patches wrote: > > On 15/09/2021 13:02, Richard Earnshaw wrote: >> >> >> On 26/08/2021 16:53, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote: >>> g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C uses an asm statement relying on >>> double-precision FPU support, but does not make sure it is actually >>> supported by the target. >>> Check (__ARM_FP & 8) to ensure this. >>> >>> 2021-08-26 Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@foss.st.com> >>> >>> gcc/testsuite/ >>> * g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C: Check __ARM_FP. >>> --- >>> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C >>> b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C >>> index 62263c0c3b0..90d20081d78 100644 >>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C >>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C >>> @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ >>> /* Test to catch off-by-one errors in arm/pr-support.c. */ >>> -#if defined (__VFP_FP__) && !defined (__SOFTFP__) >>> +#if defined (__VFP_FP__) && !defined (__SOFTFP__) && (__ARM_FP & 8) >>> #include <iostream> >>> #include <stdlib.h> >>> >> >> Wouldn't it be better to have an alternate to the asm for the case >> where we only have single-precision float? Something like (untested): >> >> static void donkey () >> { >> #if __ARM_FP & 8 >> asm volatile ("fcpyd d9, %P0" : : "w" (1.2345) : "d9"); >> #else >> asm volatile ("fcpys s18, %P0" : : "w" (1.2345f) : "s18"); >> #endif >> throw 1; >> } > > > I tried similar things but they failed on some testing configurations. > > Let me try your version, I'll let you know if there is any fallout. Of course, the asm syntax should be converted to the new 'unified syntax' form ie vmov.f{32,64}. R. > > Christophe > > >> >> R. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] testsuite: Make sure double-precision is supported in g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C 2021-09-15 12:49 ` Richard Earnshaw @ 2021-09-15 16:13 ` Christophe Lyon 2021-09-15 16:43 ` Richard Earnshaw 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Christophe Lyon @ 2021-09-15 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Earnshaw; +Cc: Christophe LYON, GCC Patches On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 2:49 PM Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches < gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > > On 15/09/2021 13:26, Christophe LYON via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > > On 15/09/2021 13:02, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 26/08/2021 16:53, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote: > >>> g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C uses an asm statement relying on > >>> double-precision FPU support, but does not make sure it is actually > >>> supported by the target. > >>> Check (__ARM_FP & 8) to ensure this. > >>> > >>> 2021-08-26 Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@foss.st.com> > >>> > >>> gcc/testsuite/ > >>> * g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C: Check __ARM_FP. > >>> --- > >>> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C | 2 +- > >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C > >>> b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C > >>> index 62263c0c3b0..90d20081d78 100644 > >>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C > >>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C > >>> @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ > >>> /* Test to catch off-by-one errors in arm/pr-support.c. */ > >>> -#if defined (__VFP_FP__) && !defined (__SOFTFP__) > >>> +#if defined (__VFP_FP__) && !defined (__SOFTFP__) && (__ARM_FP & 8) > >>> #include <iostream> > >>> #include <stdlib.h> > >>> > >> > >> Wouldn't it be better to have an alternate to the asm for the case > >> where we only have single-precision float? Something like (untested): > >> > >> static void donkey () > >> { > >> #if __ARM_FP & 8 > >> asm volatile ("fcpyd d9, %P0" : : "w" (1.2345) : "d9"); > >> #else > >> asm volatile ("fcpys s18, %P0" : : "w" (1.2345f) : "s18"); > >> #endif > >> throw 1; > >> } > > > > > > I tried similar things but they failed on some testing configurations. > > > > Let me try your version, I'll let you know if there is any fallout. > > Of course, the asm syntax should be converted to the new 'unified > syntax' form ie vmov.f{32,64}. > > The problem is that %P expects a double-precision register. It seems there's nothing to print a single-precision register, or rather %p (small p) rejects s18 too. > R. > > > > > Christophe > > > > > >> > >> R. > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] testsuite: Make sure double-precision is supported in g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C 2021-09-15 16:13 ` Christophe Lyon @ 2021-09-15 16:43 ` Richard Earnshaw 2021-09-16 9:12 ` Christophe LYON 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Richard Earnshaw @ 2021-09-15 16:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christophe Lyon; +Cc: GCC Patches On 15/09/2021 17:13, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote: > On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 2:49 PM Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches < > gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On 15/09/2021 13:26, Christophe LYON via Gcc-patches wrote: >>> >>> On 15/09/2021 13:02, Richard Earnshaw wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 26/08/2021 16:53, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote: >>>>> g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C uses an asm statement relying on >>>>> double-precision FPU support, but does not make sure it is actually >>>>> supported by the target. >>>>> Check (__ARM_FP & 8) to ensure this. >>>>> >>>>> 2021-08-26 Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@foss.st.com> >>>>> >>>>> gcc/testsuite/ >>>>> * g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C: Check __ARM_FP. >>>>> --- >>>>> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C | 2 +- >>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C >>>>> b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C >>>>> index 62263c0c3b0..90d20081d78 100644 >>>>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C >>>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C >>>>> @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ >>>>> /* Test to catch off-by-one errors in arm/pr-support.c. */ >>>>> -#if defined (__VFP_FP__) && !defined (__SOFTFP__) >>>>> +#if defined (__VFP_FP__) && !defined (__SOFTFP__) && (__ARM_FP & 8) >>>>> #include <iostream> >>>>> #include <stdlib.h> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Wouldn't it be better to have an alternate to the asm for the case >>>> where we only have single-precision float? Something like (untested): >>>> >>>> static void donkey () >>>> { >>>> #if __ARM_FP & 8 >>>> asm volatile ("fcpyd d9, %P0" : : "w" (1.2345) : "d9"); >>>> #else >>>> asm volatile ("fcpys s18, %P0" : : "w" (1.2345f) : "s18"); >>>> #endif >>>> throw 1; >>>> } >>> >>> >>> I tried similar things but they failed on some testing configurations. >>> >>> Let me try your version, I'll let you know if there is any fallout. >> >> Of course, the asm syntax should be converted to the new 'unified >> syntax' form ie vmov.f{32,64}. >> >> > The problem is that %P expects a double-precision register. > It seems there's nothing to print a single-precision register, or rather %p > (small p) > rejects s18 too. > > I said it was untested :) You want something like #if __ARM_FP & 8 asm volatile ("vmov.f64 d9, %P0" : : "w" (1.2345) : "d9"); #else asm volatile ("vmov.f32 s18, %0" : : "t" (1.2345f) : "s18"); #endif (there's no need for a modifier on the single-precision register name). > >> R. >> >>> >>> Christophe >>> >>> >>>> >>>> R. >> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] testsuite: Make sure double-precision is supported in g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C 2021-09-15 16:43 ` Richard Earnshaw @ 2021-09-16 9:12 ` Christophe LYON 2021-09-16 9:19 ` Richard Earnshaw 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Christophe LYON @ 2021-09-16 9:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-patches On 15/09/2021 18:43, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > On 15/09/2021 17:13, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 2:49 PM Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches < >> gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 15/09/2021 13:26, Christophe LYON via Gcc-patches wrote: >>>> >>>> On 15/09/2021 13:02, Richard Earnshaw wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 26/08/2021 16:53, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote: >>>>>> g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C uses an asm statement relying on >>>>>> double-precision FPU support, but does not make sure it is actually >>>>>> supported by the target. >>>>>> Check (__ARM_FP & 8) to ensure this. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2021-08-26 Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@foss.st.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> gcc/testsuite/ >>>>>> * g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C: Check __ARM_FP. >>>>>> --- >>>>>> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C | 2 +- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C >>>>>> b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C >>>>>> index 62263c0c3b0..90d20081d78 100644 >>>>>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C >>>>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C >>>>>> @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ >>>>>> /* Test to catch off-by-one errors in arm/pr-support.c. */ >>>>>> -#if defined (__VFP_FP__) && !defined (__SOFTFP__) >>>>>> +#if defined (__VFP_FP__) && !defined (__SOFTFP__) && (__ARM_FP & 8) >>>>>> #include <iostream> >>>>>> #include <stdlib.h> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Wouldn't it be better to have an alternate to the asm for the case >>>>> where we only have single-precision float? Something like >>>>> (untested): >>>>> >>>>> static void donkey () >>>>> { >>>>> #if __ARM_FP & 8 >>>>> asm volatile ("fcpyd d9, %P0" : : "w" (1.2345) : "d9"); >>>>> #else >>>>> asm volatile ("fcpys s18, %P0" : : "w" (1.2345f) : "s18"); >>>>> #endif >>>>> throw 1; >>>>> } >>>> >>>> >>>> I tried similar things but they failed on some testing configurations. >>>> >>>> Let me try your version, I'll let you know if there is any fallout. >>> >>> Of course, the asm syntax should be converted to the new 'unified >>> syntax' form ie vmov.f{32,64}. >>> >>> >> The problem is that %P expects a double-precision register. >> It seems there's nothing to print a single-precision register, or >> rather %p >> (small p) >> rejects s18 too. >> >> > I said it was untested :) In fact, I now remember I tried similar things and everything failed, hence my proposal at the start of this thread :-) > > You want something like > > #if __ARM_FP & 8 > asm volatile ("vmov.f64 d9, %P0" : : "w" (1.2345) : "d9"); > #else > asm volatile ("vmov.f32 s18, %0" : : "t" (1.2345f) : "s18"); > #endif > > (there's no need for a modifier on the single-precision register name). Ha! I missed the magic "t". I confirm this fixes the issues that motivated my original patch. Do you want me to commit it? Thanks Christophe > >> >>> R. >>> >>>> >>>> Christophe >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> R. >>> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] testsuite: Make sure double-precision is supported in g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C 2021-09-16 9:12 ` Christophe LYON @ 2021-09-16 9:19 ` Richard Earnshaw 2021-09-16 9:35 ` Christophe Lyon 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Richard Earnshaw @ 2021-09-16 9:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christophe LYON, gcc-patches On 16/09/2021 10:12, Christophe LYON via Gcc-patches wrote: > > On 15/09/2021 18:43, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches wrote: >> >> >> On 15/09/2021 17:13, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 2:49 PM Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches < >>> gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 15/09/2021 13:26, Christophe LYON via Gcc-patches wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 15/09/2021 13:02, Richard Earnshaw wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 26/08/2021 16:53, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote: >>>>>>> g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C uses an asm statement relying on >>>>>>> double-precision FPU support, but does not make sure it is actually >>>>>>> supported by the target. >>>>>>> Check (__ARM_FP & 8) to ensure this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2021-08-26 Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@foss.st.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> gcc/testsuite/ >>>>>>> * g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C: Check __ARM_FP. >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C | 2 +- >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C >>>>>>> b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C >>>>>>> index 62263c0c3b0..90d20081d78 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C >>>>>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C >>>>>>> @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ >>>>>>> /* Test to catch off-by-one errors in arm/pr-support.c. */ >>>>>>> -#if defined (__VFP_FP__) && !defined (__SOFTFP__) >>>>>>> +#if defined (__VFP_FP__) && !defined (__SOFTFP__) && (__ARM_FP & 8) >>>>>>> #include <iostream> >>>>>>> #include <stdlib.h> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Wouldn't it be better to have an alternate to the asm for the case >>>>>> where we only have single-precision float? Something like >>>>>> (untested): >>>>>> >>>>>> static void donkey () >>>>>> { >>>>>> #if __ARM_FP & 8 >>>>>> asm volatile ("fcpyd d9, %P0" : : "w" (1.2345) : "d9"); >>>>>> #else >>>>>> asm volatile ("fcpys s18, %P0" : : "w" (1.2345f) : "s18"); >>>>>> #endif >>>>>> throw 1; >>>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I tried similar things but they failed on some testing configurations. >>>>> >>>>> Let me try your version, I'll let you know if there is any fallout. >>>> >>>> Of course, the asm syntax should be converted to the new 'unified >>>> syntax' form ie vmov.f{32,64}. >>>> >>>> >>> The problem is that %P expects a double-precision register. >>> It seems there's nothing to print a single-precision register, or >>> rather %p >>> (small p) >>> rejects s18 too. >>> >>> >> I said it was untested :) > > In fact, I now remember I tried similar things and everything failed, > hence my proposal at the start of this thread :-) > > >> >> You want something like >> >> #if __ARM_FP & 8 >> asm volatile ("vmov.f64 d9, %P0" : : "w" (1.2345) : "d9"); >> #else >> asm volatile ("vmov.f32 s18, %0" : : "t" (1.2345f) : "s18"); >> #endif >> >> (there's no need for a modifier on the single-precision register name). > > Ha! I missed the magic "t". > > I confirm this fixes the issues that motivated my original patch. > > Do you want me to commit it? Yes, please. R. > > > Thanks > > Christophe > > >> >>> >>>> R. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Christophe >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> R. >>>> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] testsuite: Make sure double-precision is supported in g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C 2021-09-16 9:19 ` Richard Earnshaw @ 2021-09-16 9:35 ` Christophe Lyon 0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Christophe Lyon @ 2021-09-16 9:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Earnshaw; +Cc: Christophe LYON, GCC Patches On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 11:21 AM Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches < gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > > On 16/09/2021 10:12, Christophe LYON via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > > On 15/09/2021 18:43, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 15/09/2021 17:13, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote: > >>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 2:49 PM Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches < > >>> gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 15/09/2021 13:26, Christophe LYON via Gcc-patches wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> On 15/09/2021 13:02, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 26/08/2021 16:53, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote: > >>>>>>> g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C uses an asm statement relying on > >>>>>>> double-precision FPU support, but does not make sure it is actually > >>>>>>> supported by the target. > >>>>>>> Check (__ARM_FP & 8) to ensure this. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 2021-08-26 Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@foss.st.com> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> gcc/testsuite/ > >>>>>>> * g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C: Check __ARM_FP. > >>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C | 2 +- > >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C > >>>>>>> b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C > >>>>>>> index 62263c0c3b0..90d20081d78 100644 > >>>>>>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C > >>>>>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C > >>>>>>> @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ > >>>>>>> /* Test to catch off-by-one errors in arm/pr-support.c. */ > >>>>>>> -#if defined (__VFP_FP__) && !defined (__SOFTFP__) > >>>>>>> +#if defined (__VFP_FP__) && !defined (__SOFTFP__) && (__ARM_FP & > 8) > >>>>>>> #include <iostream> > >>>>>>> #include <stdlib.h> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Wouldn't it be better to have an alternate to the asm for the case > >>>>>> where we only have single-precision float? Something like > >>>>>> (untested): > >>>>>> > >>>>>> static void donkey () > >>>>>> { > >>>>>> #if __ARM_FP & 8 > >>>>>> asm volatile ("fcpyd d9, %P0" : : "w" (1.2345) : "d9"); > >>>>>> #else > >>>>>> asm volatile ("fcpys s18, %P0" : : "w" (1.2345f) : "s18"); > >>>>>> #endif > >>>>>> throw 1; > >>>>>> } > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I tried similar things but they failed on some testing > configurations. > >>>>> > >>>>> Let me try your version, I'll let you know if there is any fallout. > >>>> > >>>> Of course, the asm syntax should be converted to the new 'unified > >>>> syntax' form ie vmov.f{32,64}. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> The problem is that %P expects a double-precision register. > >>> It seems there's nothing to print a single-precision register, or > >>> rather %p > >>> (small p) > >>> rejects s18 too. > >>> > >>> > >> I said it was untested :) > > > > In fact, I now remember I tried similar things and everything failed, > > hence my proposal at the start of this thread :-) > > > > > >> > >> You want something like > >> > >> #if __ARM_FP & 8 > >> asm volatile ("vmov.f64 d9, %P0" : : "w" (1.2345) : "d9"); > >> #else > >> asm volatile ("vmov.f32 s18, %0" : : "t" (1.2345f) : "s18"); > >> #endif > >> > >> (there's no need for a modifier on the single-precision register name). > > > > Ha! I missed the magic "t". > > > > I confirm this fixes the issues that motivated my original patch. > > > > Do you want me to commit it? > > Yes, please. > > Ack, done as r12-3571-g8e2c293f02745d47948fff19615064e4b34c1776 R. > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Christophe > > > > > >> > >>> > >>>> R. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Christophe > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> R. > >>>> > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-09-16 9:35 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2021-08-26 15:53 [PATCH] testsuite: Make sure double-precision is supported in g++.dg/eh/arm-vfp-unwind.C Christophe Lyon 2021-09-06 7:23 ` Christophe LYON 2021-09-13 7:52 ` Christophe LYON 2021-09-15 11:02 ` Richard Earnshaw 2021-09-15 12:26 ` Christophe LYON 2021-09-15 12:49 ` Richard Earnshaw 2021-09-15 16:13 ` Christophe Lyon 2021-09-15 16:43 ` Richard Earnshaw 2021-09-16 9:12 ` Christophe LYON 2021-09-16 9:19 ` Richard Earnshaw 2021-09-16 9:35 ` Christophe Lyon
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).