Re: [PATCH 13/14][ARM/AArch64 testsuite] Use gcc-dg-runtest in advsimd-intrinsics.exp

[Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>]

On 28 May 2015 at 12:22, Alan Lawrence <alan.lawrence@arm.com> wrote:
> Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> On 26 May 2015 at 18:25, Alan Lawrence <alan.lawrence@arm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't see this symptom - I am able to execute such subsets with either
>>> my,
>>> or Sandra's, advsimd-intrinsics.exp.
>>
>>
>> I didn't try to run with your patch, I thought it was an oversight of
>> yours.
>>
>> Sorry, indeed I've just checked that gcc-dg-runtest includes the filter.
>>
>>> Is it that you have to check runtest_file_p because you are setting
>>> gcc_parallel_test_enable to 0?
>>>
>>> I'm doing more testing now, but I think I can drop my
>>> advsimd-intrinsics.exp
>>> changes altogether; I'll post an updated patch series shortly.
>>>
>>> In the meantime I'm curious as to why you found the
>>> gcc_parallel_test_enable
>>> necessary? (And is it safe to reset it to 1 afterwards, rather than to a
>>> saved value?)
>>
>> See https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-10/msg00081.html
>
>
> So after working through the differences between Sandra's and my patch, I
> find the existing advsimd-intrinsics.exp achieves pretty much the same
> thing, and preserves the same list of test variants (e.g. the -Og -g from
> set-torture-options which I had removed).
>
> However, I've tried testing advsimd-intrinsics.exp (both the whole thing,
> and individual tests using RUNTESTFLAGS) with and without this hunk:
>
> @@ -57,20 +57,7 @@ set-torture-options $C_TORTURE_OPTIONS {{}}
> $LTO_TORTURE_OPTI
>  set additional_flags [add_options_for_arm_neon ""]
>
>  # Main loop.
> -foreach src [lsort [glob -nocomplain $srcdir/$subdir/*.c]] {
> -    # If we're only testing specific files and this isn't one of them, skip
> it.
> -    if ![runtest_file_p $runtests $src] then {
> -       continue
> -    }
> -
> -    # runtest_file_p is already run above, and the code below can run
> -    # runtest_file_p again, make sure everything for this test is
> -    # performed if the above runtest_file_p decided this runtest
> -    # instance should execute the test
> -    gcc_parallel_test_enable 0
> -    gcc-dg-runtest $src "" $additional_flags
> -    gcc_parallel_test_enable 1
> -}
> +gcc-dg-runtest [lsort [glob -nocomplain $srcdir/$subdir/*.\[cS\]]] ""
> ${additional_flags}
>
> and find exactly the same tests are run and pass. My hypothesis is thus that
> you only need the explicit loop, manual checking of runtest_file_p, and
> gcc_parallel_test_enable, in order to do *both* c-torture-execute *and*
> gcc-dg-runtest; since we are now only doing the latter, this is unnecessary.
> Does that make sense? (If you agree, I'll propose that as a standalone
> cleanup patch.)
>

Indeed I think you are right. Since we no longer call
c-torture-execute, we no longer need to call runtest_file_p here.
Having only one remaining call to runtest_file_p in gcc-dg-runtest is
parallel-safe. Thanks for the cleanup.

Christophe.

> Cheers, Alan
>