From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18007 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2014 13:07:57 -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 17964 invoked by uid 89); 10 Jul 2014 13:07:55 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mail-qg0-f51.google.com Received: from mail-qg0-f51.google.com (HELO mail-qg0-f51.google.com) (209.85.192.51) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 10 Jul 2014 13:07:53 +0000 Received: by mail-qg0-f51.google.com with SMTP id z60so7359389qgd.38 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2014 06:07:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.102.15 with SMTP id v15mr75654779qge.93.1404997671180; Thu, 10 Jul 2014 06:07:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.138.79 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Jul 2014 06:07:51 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: ramrad01@arm.com In-Reply-To: References: <000b01cf8bcf$f6e83d20$e4b8b760$@samsung.com> <53A30620.8020009@arm.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 13:07:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix for PR 61561 From: Ramana Radhakrishnan To: Yuri Gribov Cc: Richard Earnshaw , Marat Zakirov , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , "ktkachov@gcc.gnu.org" , Gribov Yury , Slava Garbuzov , Marat Zakirov Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-07/txt/msg00707.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Yuri Gribov wrote: >> Thirdly, we also need to fix movhi_bytes (for pre-v4) thumb2_movhi_insn >> (for thumb2) and, quite possibly, thumb1_movhi_insn (for thumb1). There >> may well be additional changes for movqi variants as well. > > A general question: how should one test ARM backend patches? Is it > enough to regtest ARM and Thumb2 on some modern Cortex? If not - what > other variants should be tested? We don't expect everyone to test every single variant as one wouldn't be able to make forward progress. 1. Cross testing armv7-a / Thumb2 on qemu is acceptable. 2. If you have the resources (now with A15's) bootstrapping and regression testing on a modern machine would be so much better. 3. Cross test on qemu for older variants that may fail- you could consider cross testing on just the older variants. Testing on qemu comes with it's pitfalls, the threaded tests are a joke / the asan tests continue to randomly fail but in general it gives you a good enough indication about how badly things maybe broken. 4. Watch out for any regressions / bug reports from folks on bugzilla / the mailing lists and deal with any fallout that comes promptly. Thanks, Ramana > > -Y