public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>
To: Tamar Christina <Tamar.Christina@arm.com>
Cc: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
	nd <nd@arm.com>,
		Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com>,
	Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>,
		"nickc@redhat.com" <nickc@redhat.com>,
	Kyrylo Tkachov <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][GCC][ARM] Fix fragile arm fpu attribute tests.
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 20:46:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKdteOY7wFD6E+RkAcLGmJQgV3GYuo7jQ0j11wzaLm97Tn-ctA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171214105615.GA24723@arm.com>

On 14 December 2017 at 11:56, Tamar Christina <Tamar.Christina@arm.com> wrote:
> The 12/13/2017 08:49, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> On 12 December 2017 at 18:29, Tamar Christina <tamar.christina@arm.com> wrote:
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > The previous test made use of arm_neon.h which made the whole test
>> > rather fragile and only applicable to some of the arm targets.
>> >
>> > So instead I make use of different fpus now to test the generation of
>> > fmla instructions. The actual instruction itself is not tested as all
>> > we care about if that the proper .fpu directives are generated.
>> >
>> > Regtested on arm-none-eabi and arm-none-linux-gnueabihf
>> > with no regressions.
>> >
>> > Ok for trunk?
>> >
>> >
>> > gcc/testsuite/
>> > 2017-12-12  Tamar Christina  <tamar.christina@arm.com>
>> >
>> >         PR target/82641
>> >         * gcc.target/arm/pragma_fpu_attribute.c: New.
>> >         * gcc.target/arm/pragma_fpu_attribute_2.c: New.
>
> Hi Christophe,
>
> My apologies, I have rebased the patch.
> New Changelog:
>
> gcc/testsuite/
> 2017-12-14  Tamar Christina  <tamar.christina@arm.com>
>
>         PR target/82641
>         * gcc.target/arm/pragma_fpu_attribute.c: Rewrite to use
>         no NEON.
>         * gcc.target/arm/pragma_fpu_attribute_2.c: Likewise.
>

Hi,

Sorry I think there is still something wrong with this patch.
In pragma_fpu_attribute_2.c, you are not removing
#include <arm_neon.h>
as the ChangeLog seems to imply?

So, with this patch, there are problems on arm-none-linux-gnueabi and
arm-none-eabi:
FAIL:    gcc.target/arm/pragma_fpu_attribute.c scan-assembler-times
\\.fpu\\s+vfpv3-d16 1 (found 0 times)
FAIL:    gcc.target/arm/pragma_fpu_attribute.c scan-assembler-times
\\.fpu\\s+vfpv4 1 (found 0 times)

and pragma_fpu_attribute_2.c still fails to compile:
In file included from /gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pragma_fpu_attribute_2.c:6:
/aci-gcc-fsf/builds/gcc-fsf-gccsrc/obj-arm-none-eabi/gcc3/gcc/include/arm_neon.h:31:2:
error: #error "NEON intrinsics not available with the soft-float ABI.
Please use -mfloat-abi=softfp or -mfloat-abi=hard"

I'm not sure why you don't see this when testing on arm-none-eabi?

If you want to see more details:
http://people.linaro.org/~christophe.lyon/cross-validation/gcc-test-patches/255624-rb8655.patch-2/report-build-info.html
(ignore the lines with "interrupted", this means there was a problem
on the host during the build)

Christophe


>> >
>> Sorry, it seems your patch does not apply against ToT, and
>> the ChangeLog looks incorrect (these are not new files)
>>
>> Christophe
>
> Thanks,
> Tamar
>
> --

  reply	other threads:[~2017-12-14 20:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-12-12 17:29 Tamar Christina
2017-12-13  8:49 ` Christophe Lyon
2017-12-14 10:56   ` Tamar Christina
2017-12-14 20:46     ` Christophe Lyon [this message]
2017-12-21 14:25       ` Tamar Christina
2017-12-21 21:38         ` Christophe Lyon
2018-01-09 10:18           ` Tamar Christina
2018-01-09 10:21             ` Kyrill Tkachov

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAKdteOY7wFD6E+RkAcLGmJQgV3GYuo7jQ0j11wzaLm97Tn-ctA@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=christophe.lyon@linaro.org \
    --cc=Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com \
    --cc=Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com \
    --cc=Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com \
    --cc=Tamar.Christina@arm.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=nd@arm.com \
    --cc=nickc@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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).