From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6307 invoked by alias); 2 Nov 2015 09:28:44 -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 6254 invoked by uid 89); 2 Nov 2015 09:28:44 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-yk0-f180.google.com Received: from mail-yk0-f180.google.com (HELO mail-yk0-f180.google.com) (209.85.160.180) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 02 Nov 2015 09:28:35 +0000 Received: by ykba4 with SMTP id a4so133499942ykb.3 for ; Mon, 02 Nov 2015 01:28:32 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=VAreEYp9+ErBzJrknuB5W6hf8YanflYnE0fG7JNQbP8=; b=OVUzAfzDuqzTYcdm5bYccOmlypt9oi7Cli4ah7SvMa4zZo3AnMRSvRMnXJl4JhHL78 KeK48QjLUdOB+6ftvo8ETHfB5pq7EogugxTmCeWB6jFY0yrxR52IDSBQ30EcbdKBYQYZ Gwl0y++19MyzzREzSE1V/0QMlxYNc2EJFN/jFpGMWiL4yOjcBjQ+Skjxbipyt2kwoXes UPSsZ5CpJT9oE7w8UFkl0nEukmVeZDt4/wrw8ZkfrXpuFQwQRIJL5dZlmXj2M+BgvvXd 0HXE0UsBT8164GBP1z0P8rYb13kts6fek6AuN3g0EbMHz0T8zvRfxF/Ica28q6K/oj6Y gFlA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl8oeShhbhl3B1B330Xov2t9zaaKOd97dsWEMtUiVPaC/7ZxBnIo72xVb1IFVnTHLiX0vDx MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.129.136.69 with SMTP id y66mr17438622ywf.242.1446456512269; Mon, 02 Nov 2015 01:28:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.37.203.141 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 01:28:32 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <56372BDD.7060005@foss.arm.com> References: <561E4941.6030204@arm.com> <563720F1.3070903@foss.arm.com> <56372BDD.7060005@foss.arm.com> Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 09:28:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH][ARM] PR target/67929 Tighten vfp3_const_double_for_bits checks From: Yvan Roux To: Ramana Radhakrishnan Cc: Christophe Lyon , Kyrill Tkachov , GCC Patches , Ramana Radhakrishnan , Richard Earnshaw Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-11/txt/msg00035.txt.bz2 On 2 November 2015 at 10:24, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > > > On 02/11/15 09:01, Christophe Lyon wrote: >> On 2 November 2015 at 09:51, Yvan Roux wrote: >>> On 2 November 2015 at 09:38, Ramana Radhakrishnan >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2015-10-12 Kyrylo Tkachov >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PR target/67929 >>>>>>> * gcc.target/arm/pr67929_1.c: New test. >>>>> >>>>> This test fails when tested on hard-float targets, adding the >>>>> following line to avoid testing it in such cases will fix the issue, >>>>> but I wonder if there is a better dejaGNU directives sequence to do >>>>> that. >>>>> >>>>> /* { dg-skip-if "avoid conflicting multilib options" { *-*-*eabihf } { >>>>> "*" } { "" } } */ >>>> >>>> No, not without further investigation into why the test is failing. >>> >>> Sorry, it fails because of the ABI mismatch between the built libs for >>> HF targets and the testcase which is built with the flag >>> -mfloat-abi=softfp (which is added by the directive arm_vfpv3_ok) >>> >> I think that's what I meant in: >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67929#c7 > > Ah, I see what you mean - instead I would just remove all the special options and move this test into gcc.c-torture/execute. > > There are enough testers that test by default to armhf now for us to be worried about testing the exact combination. Ha yes that's ture and I remember that we ended to that same conclusion for one testcase I tried to find the exact float ABI flag combination several months ago. Yvan > regards > Ramana > >> >> Christophe. >> >>> Yvan >>> >>>> regards >>>> Ramana >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Yvan >>>>>