* [arm/testsuite]: Skip pr97969.c if -mthumb is not compatible [PR target/97969] @ 2021-01-27 9:03 Christophe Lyon 2021-02-03 9:01 ` Christophe Lyon 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Christophe Lyon @ 2021-01-27 9:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc Patches [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 796 bytes --] Depending on how the toolchain is configured or how the testsuite is executed, -mthumb may not be compatible. Like for other tests, skip pr97969.c in this case. For instance arm-linux-gnueabihf and -march=armv5t in RUNTESTFLAGS. 2021-01-27 Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> gcc/testsuite/ PR target/97969 * gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c: Skip if thumb mode is not available. diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c index 714a1d1..0b5d07f 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@ /* { dg-do compile } */ +/* { dg-skip-if "" { ! { arm_thumb1_ok || arm_thumb2_ok } } } */ /* { dg-options "-std=c99 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mthumb -w -Os" } */ typedef a[23]; [-- Attachment #2: pr97969.testcase.patch --] [-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 880 bytes --] [arm/testsuite]: Skip pr97969.c if -mthumb is not compatible [PR target/97969] Depending on how the toolchain is configured or how the testsuite is executed, -mthumb may not be compatible. Like for other tests, skip pr97969.c in this case. For instance arm-linux-gnueabihf and -march=armv5t in RUNTESTFLAGS. 2021-01-27 Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> gcc/testsuite/ PR target/97969 * gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c: Skip if thumb mode is not available. diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c index 714a1d1..0b5d07f 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@ /* { dg-do compile } */ +/* { dg-skip-if "" { ! { arm_thumb1_ok || arm_thumb2_ok } } } */ /* { dg-options "-std=c99 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mthumb -w -Os" } */ typedef a[23]; ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [arm/testsuite]: Skip pr97969.c if -mthumb is not compatible [PR target/97969] 2021-01-27 9:03 [arm/testsuite]: Skip pr97969.c if -mthumb is not compatible [PR target/97969] Christophe Lyon @ 2021-02-03 9:01 ` Christophe Lyon 2021-03-01 15:26 ` Christophe Lyon 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Christophe Lyon @ 2021-02-03 9:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc Patches Ping? I guess that's obvious enough? On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 10:03, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote: > > Depending on how the toolchain is configured or how the testsuite is > executed, -mthumb may not be compatible. Like for other tests, skip > pr97969.c in this case. > > For instance arm-linux-gnueabihf and -march=armv5t in RUNTESTFLAGS. > > 2021-01-27 Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> > > gcc/testsuite/ > PR target/97969 > * gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c: Skip if thumb mode is not available. > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c > b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c > index 714a1d1..0b5d07f 100644 > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c > @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@ > /* { dg-do compile } */ > +/* { dg-skip-if "" { ! { arm_thumb1_ok || arm_thumb2_ok } } } */ > /* { dg-options "-std=c99 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mthumb -w -Os" } */ > > typedef a[23]; ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [arm/testsuite]: Skip pr97969.c if -mthumb is not compatible [PR target/97969] 2021-02-03 9:01 ` Christophe Lyon @ 2021-03-01 15:26 ` Christophe Lyon 2021-03-02 16:19 ` Richard Earnshaw 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Christophe Lyon @ 2021-03-01 15:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc Patches Ping? On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 at 10:01, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote: > > Ping? > I guess that's obvious enough? > > On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 10:03, Christophe Lyon > <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > Depending on how the toolchain is configured or how the testsuite is > > executed, -mthumb may not be compatible. Like for other tests, skip > > pr97969.c in this case. > > > > For instance arm-linux-gnueabihf and -march=armv5t in RUNTESTFLAGS. > > > > 2021-01-27 Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> > > > > gcc/testsuite/ > > PR target/97969 > > * gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c: Skip if thumb mode is not available. > > > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c > > b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c > > index 714a1d1..0b5d07f 100644 > > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c > > @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@ > > /* { dg-do compile } */ > > +/* { dg-skip-if "" { ! { arm_thumb1_ok || arm_thumb2_ok } } } */ > > /* { dg-options "-std=c99 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mthumb -w -Os" } */ > > > > typedef a[23]; ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [arm/testsuite]: Skip pr97969.c if -mthumb is not compatible [PR target/97969] 2021-03-01 15:26 ` Christophe Lyon @ 2021-03-02 16:19 ` Richard Earnshaw 2021-03-02 16:25 ` Richard Earnshaw 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Richard Earnshaw @ 2021-03-02 16:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christophe Lyon, gcc Patches On 01/03/2021 15:26, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote: > Ping? > > On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 at 10:01, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> Ping? >> I guess that's obvious enough? >> >> On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 10:03, Christophe Lyon >> <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote: >>> >>> Depending on how the toolchain is configured or how the testsuite is >>> executed, -mthumb may not be compatible. Like for other tests, skip >>> pr97969.c in this case. >>> >>> For instance arm-linux-gnueabihf and -march=armv5t in RUNTESTFLAGS. >>> >>> 2021-01-27 Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> >>> >>> gcc/testsuite/ >>> PR target/97969 >>> * gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c: Skip if thumb mode is not available. >>> >>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c >>> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c >>> index 714a1d1..0b5d07f 100644 >>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c >>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c >>> @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@ >>> /* { dg-do compile } */ >>> +/* { dg-skip-if "" { ! { arm_thumb1_ok || arm_thumb2_ok } } } */ >>> /* { dg-options "-std=c99 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mthumb -w -Os" } */ >>> >>> typedef a[23]; I'm working on a patch to make this sort of change unnecessary (I hope). Just running some final checks. R. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [arm/testsuite]: Skip pr97969.c if -mthumb is not compatible [PR target/97969] 2021-03-02 16:19 ` Richard Earnshaw @ 2021-03-02 16:25 ` Richard Earnshaw 2021-03-02 18:10 ` Christophe Lyon 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Richard Earnshaw @ 2021-03-02 16:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christophe Lyon, gcc Patches On 02/03/2021 16:19, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches wrote: > On 01/03/2021 15:26, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote: >> Ping? >> >> On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 at 10:01, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote: >>> >>> Ping? >>> I guess that's obvious enough? >>> >>> On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 10:03, Christophe Lyon >>> <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Depending on how the toolchain is configured or how the testsuite is >>>> executed, -mthumb may not be compatible. Like for other tests, skip >>>> pr97969.c in this case. >>>> >>>> For instance arm-linux-gnueabihf and -march=armv5t in RUNTESTFLAGS. >>>> >>>> 2021-01-27 Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> >>>> >>>> gcc/testsuite/ >>>> PR target/97969 >>>> * gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c: Skip if thumb mode is not available. >>>> >>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c >>>> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c >>>> index 714a1d1..0b5d07f 100644 >>>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c >>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c >>>> @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@ >>>> /* { dg-do compile } */ >>>> +/* { dg-skip-if "" { ! { arm_thumb1_ok || arm_thumb2_ok } } } */ >>>> /* { dg-options "-std=c99 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mthumb -w -Os" } */ >>>> >>>> typedef a[23]; > > I'm working on a patch to make this sort of change unnecessary (I hope). > Just running some final checks. > > R. > Ah, wait. This one already has an explicit -mthumb, so my patch won't affect this. But why is -mthumb needed for this test anyway? It's just a compilation test, so why not drop that and we'll generally get better coverage all round. R. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [arm/testsuite]: Skip pr97969.c if -mthumb is not compatible [PR target/97969] 2021-03-02 16:25 ` Richard Earnshaw @ 2021-03-02 18:10 ` Christophe Lyon 2021-03-02 18:14 ` Richard Earnshaw 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Christophe Lyon @ 2021-03-02 18:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Earnshaw; +Cc: gcc Patches On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 17:25, Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@foss.arm.com> wrote: > > On 02/03/2021 16:19, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches wrote: > > On 01/03/2021 15:26, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote: > >> Ping? > >> > >> On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 at 10:01, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> Ping? > >>> I guess that's obvious enough? > >>> > >>> On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 10:03, Christophe Lyon > >>> <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Depending on how the toolchain is configured or how the testsuite is > >>>> executed, -mthumb may not be compatible. Like for other tests, skip > >>>> pr97969.c in this case. > >>>> > >>>> For instance arm-linux-gnueabihf and -march=armv5t in RUNTESTFLAGS. > >>>> > >>>> 2021-01-27 Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> > >>>> > >>>> gcc/testsuite/ > >>>> PR target/97969 > >>>> * gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c: Skip if thumb mode is not available. > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c > >>>> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c > >>>> index 714a1d1..0b5d07f 100644 > >>>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c > >>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c > >>>> @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@ > >>>> /* { dg-do compile } */ > >>>> +/* { dg-skip-if "" { ! { arm_thumb1_ok || arm_thumb2_ok } } } */ > >>>> /* { dg-options "-std=c99 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mthumb -w -Os" } */ > >>>> > >>>> typedef a[23]; > > > > I'm working on a patch to make this sort of change unnecessary (I hope). > > Just running some final checks. > > > > R. > > > > Ah, wait. This one already has an explicit -mthumb, so my patch won't > affect this. But why is -mthumb needed for this test anyway? It's just > a compilation test, so why not drop that and we'll generally get better > coverage all round. > For instance I see the test fail for target arm-none-linux-gnueabihf --with-mode arm --with-cpu cortex-a9 --with-fpu vfp and running the tests with -march=armv5t We get the famous thumb-1 + hard-float ABI not supported. I guess -mthumb is inherited from the bug report? Christophe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [arm/testsuite]: Skip pr97969.c if -mthumb is not compatible [PR target/97969] 2021-03-02 18:10 ` Christophe Lyon @ 2021-03-02 18:14 ` Richard Earnshaw 2021-03-02 18:17 ` Richard Earnshaw 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Richard Earnshaw @ 2021-03-02 18:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christophe Lyon; +Cc: gcc Patches On 02/03/2021 18:10, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 17:25, Richard Earnshaw > <Richard.Earnshaw@foss.arm.com> wrote: >> >> On 02/03/2021 16:19, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches wrote: >>> On 01/03/2021 15:26, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote: >>>> Ping? >>>> >>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 at 10:01, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Ping? >>>>> I guess that's obvious enough? >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 10:03, Christophe Lyon >>>>> <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Depending on how the toolchain is configured or how the testsuite is >>>>>> executed, -mthumb may not be compatible. Like for other tests, skip >>>>>> pr97969.c in this case. >>>>>> >>>>>> For instance arm-linux-gnueabihf and -march=armv5t in RUNTESTFLAGS. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2021-01-27 Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> >>>>>> >>>>>> gcc/testsuite/ >>>>>> PR target/97969 >>>>>> * gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c: Skip if thumb mode is not available. >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c >>>>>> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c >>>>>> index 714a1d1..0b5d07f 100644 >>>>>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c >>>>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c >>>>>> @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@ >>>>>> /* { dg-do compile } */ >>>>>> +/* { dg-skip-if "" { ! { arm_thumb1_ok || arm_thumb2_ok } } } */ >>>>>> /* { dg-options "-std=c99 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mthumb -w -Os" } */ >>>>>> >>>>>> typedef a[23]; >>> >>> I'm working on a patch to make this sort of change unnecessary (I hope). >>> Just running some final checks. >>> >>> R. >>> >> >> Ah, wait. This one already has an explicit -mthumb, so my patch won't >> affect this. But why is -mthumb needed for this test anyway? It's just >> a compilation test, so why not drop that and we'll generally get better >> coverage all round. >> > > For instance I see the test fail for target arm-none-linux-gnueabihf > --with-mode arm --with-cpu cortex-a9 --with-fpu vfp > and running the tests with -march=armv5t > > We get the famous thumb-1 + hard-float ABI not supported. > > I guess -mthumb is inherited from the bug report? > > Christophe > dropping the -mthumb should fix that though? In fact, I'd drop -Os as well, it's not needed as -Os is just one of the many options that are used to build this test already. R. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [arm/testsuite]: Skip pr97969.c if -mthumb is not compatible [PR target/97969] 2021-03-02 18:14 ` Richard Earnshaw @ 2021-03-02 18:17 ` Richard Earnshaw 2021-03-02 18:35 ` Christophe Lyon 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Richard Earnshaw @ 2021-03-02 18:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christophe Lyon; +Cc: gcc Patches On 02/03/2021 18:14, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches wrote: > On 02/03/2021 18:10, Christophe Lyon wrote: >> On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 17:25, Richard Earnshaw >> <Richard.Earnshaw@foss.arm.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 02/03/2021 16:19, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches wrote: >>>> On 01/03/2021 15:26, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote: >>>>> Ping? >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 at 10:01, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Ping? >>>>>> I guess that's obvious enough? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 10:03, Christophe Lyon >>>>>> <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Depending on how the toolchain is configured or how the testsuite is >>>>>>> executed, -mthumb may not be compatible. Like for other tests, skip >>>>>>> pr97969.c in this case. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For instance arm-linux-gnueabihf and -march=armv5t in RUNTESTFLAGS. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2021-01-27 Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> gcc/testsuite/ >>>>>>> PR target/97969 >>>>>>> * gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c: Skip if thumb mode is not available. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c >>>>>>> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c >>>>>>> index 714a1d1..0b5d07f 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c >>>>>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c >>>>>>> @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@ >>>>>>> /* { dg-do compile } */ >>>>>>> +/* { dg-skip-if "" { ! { arm_thumb1_ok || arm_thumb2_ok } } } */ >>>>>>> /* { dg-options "-std=c99 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mthumb -w -Os" } */ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> typedef a[23]; >>>> >>>> I'm working on a patch to make this sort of change unnecessary (I hope). >>>> Just running some final checks. >>>> >>>> R. >>>> >>> >>> Ah, wait. This one already has an explicit -mthumb, so my patch won't >>> affect this. But why is -mthumb needed for this test anyway? It's just >>> a compilation test, so why not drop that and we'll generally get better >>> coverage all round. >>> >> >> For instance I see the test fail for target arm-none-linux-gnueabihf >> --with-mode arm --with-cpu cortex-a9 --with-fpu vfp >> and running the tests with -march=armv5t >> >> We get the famous thumb-1 + hard-float ABI not supported. >> >> I guess -mthumb is inherited from the bug report? >> >> Christophe >> > > dropping the -mthumb should fix that though? > > In fact, I'd drop -Os as well, it's not needed as -Os is just one of the > many options that are used to build this test already. > > R. > But maybe then we need to change dg-options into dg-add-options. R. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [arm/testsuite]: Skip pr97969.c if -mthumb is not compatible [PR target/97969] 2021-03-02 18:17 ` Richard Earnshaw @ 2021-03-02 18:35 ` Christophe Lyon 2021-03-03 14:00 ` Richard Earnshaw 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Christophe Lyon @ 2021-03-02 18:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Earnshaw; +Cc: gcc Patches On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 19:18, Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@foss.arm.com> wrote: > > On 02/03/2021 18:14, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches wrote: > > On 02/03/2021 18:10, Christophe Lyon wrote: > >> On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 17:25, Richard Earnshaw > >> <Richard.Earnshaw@foss.arm.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 02/03/2021 16:19, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches wrote: > >>>> On 01/03/2021 15:26, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote: > >>>>> Ping? > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 at 10:01, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ping? > >>>>>> I guess that's obvious enough? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 10:03, Christophe Lyon > >>>>>> <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Depending on how the toolchain is configured or how the testsuite is > >>>>>>> executed, -mthumb may not be compatible. Like for other tests, skip > >>>>>>> pr97969.c in this case. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> For instance arm-linux-gnueabihf and -march=armv5t in RUNTESTFLAGS. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 2021-01-27 Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> gcc/testsuite/ > >>>>>>> PR target/97969 > >>>>>>> * gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c: Skip if thumb mode is not available. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c > >>>>>>> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c > >>>>>>> index 714a1d1..0b5d07f 100644 > >>>>>>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c > >>>>>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c > >>>>>>> @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@ > >>>>>>> /* { dg-do compile } */ > >>>>>>> +/* { dg-skip-if "" { ! { arm_thumb1_ok || arm_thumb2_ok } } } */ > >>>>>>> /* { dg-options "-std=c99 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mthumb -w -Os" } */ > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> typedef a[23]; > >>>> > >>>> I'm working on a patch to make this sort of change unnecessary (I hope). > >>>> Just running some final checks. > >>>> > >>>> R. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Ah, wait. This one already has an explicit -mthumb, so my patch won't > >>> affect this. But why is -mthumb needed for this test anyway? It's just > >>> a compilation test, so why not drop that and we'll generally get better > >>> coverage all round. > >>> > >> > >> For instance I see the test fail for target arm-none-linux-gnueabihf > >> --with-mode arm --with-cpu cortex-a9 --with-fpu vfp > >> and running the tests with -march=armv5t > >> > >> We get the famous thumb-1 + hard-float ABI not supported. > >> > >> I guess -mthumb is inherited from the bug report? > >> > >> Christophe > >> > > > > dropping the -mthumb should fix that though? > > > > In fact, I'd drop -Os as well, it's not needed as -Os is just one of the > > many options that are used to build this test already. > > > > R. > > > > But maybe then we need to change dg-options into dg-add-options. > Not sure to follow: the test is compiled only once, with: -std=c99 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mthumb -w -Os in my logs > R. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [arm/testsuite]: Skip pr97969.c if -mthumb is not compatible [PR target/97969] 2021-03-02 18:35 ` Christophe Lyon @ 2021-03-03 14:00 ` Richard Earnshaw 2021-03-15 16:03 ` Christophe Lyon 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Richard Earnshaw @ 2021-03-03 14:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christophe Lyon; +Cc: gcc Patches On 02/03/2021 18:35, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 19:18, Richard Earnshaw > <Richard.Earnshaw@foss.arm.com> wrote: >> >> On 02/03/2021 18:14, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches wrote: >>> On 02/03/2021 18:10, Christophe Lyon wrote: >>>> On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 17:25, Richard Earnshaw >>>> <Richard.Earnshaw@foss.arm.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 02/03/2021 16:19, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches wrote: >>>>>> On 01/03/2021 15:26, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote: >>>>>>> Ping? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 at 10:01, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ping? >>>>>>>> I guess that's obvious enough? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 10:03, Christophe Lyon >>>>>>>> <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Depending on how the toolchain is configured or how the testsuite is >>>>>>>>> executed, -mthumb may not be compatible. Like for other tests, skip >>>>>>>>> pr97969.c in this case. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For instance arm-linux-gnueabihf and -march=armv5t in RUNTESTFLAGS. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2021-01-27 Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> gcc/testsuite/ >>>>>>>>> PR target/97969 >>>>>>>>> * gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c: Skip if thumb mode is not available. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c >>>>>>>>> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c >>>>>>>>> index 714a1d1..0b5d07f 100644 >>>>>>>>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c >>>>>>>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c >>>>>>>>> @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@ >>>>>>>>> /* { dg-do compile } */ >>>>>>>>> +/* { dg-skip-if "" { ! { arm_thumb1_ok || arm_thumb2_ok } } } */ >>>>>>>>> /* { dg-options "-std=c99 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mthumb -w -Os" } */ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> typedef a[23]; >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm working on a patch to make this sort of change unnecessary (I hope). >>>>>> Just running some final checks. >>>>>> >>>>>> R. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ah, wait. This one already has an explicit -mthumb, so my patch won't >>>>> affect this. But why is -mthumb needed for this test anyway? It's just >>>>> a compilation test, so why not drop that and we'll generally get better >>>>> coverage all round. >>>>> >>>> >>>> For instance I see the test fail for target arm-none-linux-gnueabihf >>>> --with-mode arm --with-cpu cortex-a9 --with-fpu vfp >>>> and running the tests with -march=armv5t >>>> >>>> We get the famous thumb-1 + hard-float ABI not supported. >>>> >>>> I guess -mthumb is inherited from the bug report? >>>> >>>> Christophe >>>> >>> >>> dropping the -mthumb should fix that though? >>> >>> In fact, I'd drop -Os as well, it's not needed as -Os is just one of the >>> many options that are used to build this test already. >>> >>> R. >>> >> >> But maybe then we need to change dg-options into dg-add-options. >> > > Not sure to follow: the test is compiled only once, with: > -std=c99 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mthumb -w -Os > in my logs > I think it's only run the once /because/ the test sets dg-options rather than dg-add-options. R. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [arm/testsuite]: Skip pr97969.c if -mthumb is not compatible [PR target/97969] 2021-03-03 14:00 ` Richard Earnshaw @ 2021-03-15 16:03 ` Christophe Lyon 2021-06-03 8:38 ` Christophe Lyon 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Christophe Lyon @ 2021-03-15 16:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Earnshaw; +Cc: gcc Patches On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 at 15:00, Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@foss.arm.com> wrote: > > On 02/03/2021 18:35, Christophe Lyon wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 19:18, Richard Earnshaw > > <Richard.Earnshaw@foss.arm.com> wrote: > >> > >> On 02/03/2021 18:14, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches wrote: > >>> On 02/03/2021 18:10, Christophe Lyon wrote: > >>>> On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 17:25, Richard Earnshaw > >>>> <Richard.Earnshaw@foss.arm.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> On 02/03/2021 16:19, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches wrote: > >>>>>> On 01/03/2021 15:26, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote: > >>>>>>> Ping? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 at 10:01, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Ping? > >>>>>>>> I guess that's obvious enough? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 10:03, Christophe Lyon > >>>>>>>> <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Depending on how the toolchain is configured or how the testsuite is > >>>>>>>>> executed, -mthumb may not be compatible. Like for other tests, skip > >>>>>>>>> pr97969.c in this case. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> For instance arm-linux-gnueabihf and -march=armv5t in RUNTESTFLAGS. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 2021-01-27 Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> gcc/testsuite/ > >>>>>>>>> PR target/97969 > >>>>>>>>> * gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c: Skip if thumb mode is not available. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c > >>>>>>>>> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c > >>>>>>>>> index 714a1d1..0b5d07f 100644 > >>>>>>>>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c > >>>>>>>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c > >>>>>>>>> @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@ > >>>>>>>>> /* { dg-do compile } */ > >>>>>>>>> +/* { dg-skip-if "" { ! { arm_thumb1_ok || arm_thumb2_ok } } } */ > >>>>>>>>> /* { dg-options "-std=c99 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mthumb -w -Os" } */ > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> typedef a[23]; > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'm working on a patch to make this sort of change unnecessary (I hope). > >>>>>> Just running some final checks. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> R. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Ah, wait. This one already has an explicit -mthumb, so my patch won't > >>>>> affect this. But why is -mthumb needed for this test anyway? It's just > >>>>> a compilation test, so why not drop that and we'll generally get better > >>>>> coverage all round. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> For instance I see the test fail for target arm-none-linux-gnueabihf > >>>> --with-mode arm --with-cpu cortex-a9 --with-fpu vfp > >>>> and running the tests with -march=armv5t > >>>> > >>>> We get the famous thumb-1 + hard-float ABI not supported. > >>>> > >>>> I guess -mthumb is inherited from the bug report? > >>>> > >>>> Christophe > >>>> > >>> > >>> dropping the -mthumb should fix that though? > >>> > >>> In fact, I'd drop -Os as well, it's not needed as -Os is just one of the > >>> many options that are used to build this test already. > >>> > >>> R. > >>> > >> > >> But maybe then we need to change dg-options into dg-add-options. > >> > > > > Not sure to follow: the test is compiled only once, with: > > -std=c99 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mthumb -w -Os > > in my logs > > > > I think it's only run the once /because/ the test sets dg-options rather > than dg-add-options. > Hi, sorry for the delay... I guess you mean dg-additional-options ? I did try that, to be sure, but the tests in gcc.target/arm are only compiled once. Back to the original discussion, if we drop -mthumb, which is required according to the PR (?), how do we ensure coverage? Sure I'm running the testsuite with various RUNTESTFLAGS settings, but wouldn't it be better to test what the PR reports by default? Thanks Christophe . ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [arm/testsuite]: Skip pr97969.c if -mthumb is not compatible [PR target/97969] 2021-03-15 16:03 ` Christophe Lyon @ 2021-06-03 8:38 ` Christophe Lyon 2021-06-03 8:39 ` Christophe Lyon 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Christophe Lyon @ 2021-06-03 8:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Earnshaw; +Cc: gcc Patches On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 at 17:03, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 at 15:00, Richard Earnshaw > <Richard.Earnshaw@foss.arm.com> wrote: > > > > On 02/03/2021 18:35, Christophe Lyon wrote: > > > On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 19:18, Richard Earnshaw > > > <Richard.Earnshaw@foss.arm.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> On 02/03/2021 18:14, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches wrote: > > >>> On 02/03/2021 18:10, Christophe Lyon wrote: > > >>>> On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 17:25, Richard Earnshaw > > >>>> <Richard.Earnshaw@foss.arm.com> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On 02/03/2021 16:19, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches wrote: > > >>>>>> On 01/03/2021 15:26, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote: > > >>>>>>> Ping? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 at 10:01, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Ping? > > >>>>>>>> I guess that's obvious enough? > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 10:03, Christophe Lyon > > >>>>>>>> <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Depending on how the toolchain is configured or how the testsuite is > > >>>>>>>>> executed, -mthumb may not be compatible. Like for other tests, skip > > >>>>>>>>> pr97969.c in this case. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> For instance arm-linux-gnueabihf and -march=armv5t in RUNTESTFLAGS. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> 2021-01-27 Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> gcc/testsuite/ > > >>>>>>>>> PR target/97969 > > >>>>>>>>> * gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c: Skip if thumb mode is not available. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c > > >>>>>>>>> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c > > >>>>>>>>> index 714a1d1..0b5d07f 100644 > > >>>>>>>>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c > > >>>>>>>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c > > >>>>>>>>> @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@ > > >>>>>>>>> /* { dg-do compile } */ > > >>>>>>>>> +/* { dg-skip-if "" { ! { arm_thumb1_ok || arm_thumb2_ok } } } */ > > >>>>>>>>> /* { dg-options "-std=c99 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mthumb -w -Os" } */ > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> typedef a[23]; > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I'm working on a patch to make this sort of change unnecessary (I hope). > > >>>>>> Just running some final checks. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> R. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Ah, wait. This one already has an explicit -mthumb, so my patch won't > > >>>>> affect this. But why is -mthumb needed for this test anyway? It's just > > >>>>> a compilation test, so why not drop that and we'll generally get better > > >>>>> coverage all round. > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> For instance I see the test fail for target arm-none-linux-gnueabihf > > >>>> --with-mode arm --with-cpu cortex-a9 --with-fpu vfp > > >>>> and running the tests with -march=armv5t > > >>>> > > >>>> We get the famous thumb-1 + hard-float ABI not supported. > > >>>> > > >>>> I guess -mthumb is inherited from the bug report? > > >>>> > > >>>> Christophe > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> dropping the -mthumb should fix that though? > > >>> > > >>> In fact, I'd drop -Os as well, it's not needed as -Os is just one of the > > >>> many options that are used to build this test already. > > >>> > > >>> R. > > >>> > > >> > > >> But maybe then we need to change dg-options into dg-add-options. > > >> > > > > > > Not sure to follow: the test is compiled only once, with: > > > -std=c99 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mthumb -w -Os > > > in my logs > > > > > > > I think it's only run the once /because/ the test sets dg-options rather > > than dg-add-options. > > > > Hi, sorry for the delay... > I guess you mean dg-additional-options ? > I did try that, to be sure, but the tests in gcc.target/arm are only > compiled once. > > Back to the original discussion, if we drop -mthumb, which is required > according to the PR (?), how do we ensure coverage? Sure I'm running > the testsuite with various RUNTESTFLAGS settings, but wouldn't it be > better to test what the PR reports by default? > Hi, I'm resurrecting this discussion since Vladimir backported his patch to gcc-9, and I just received a new failure warning from validation on that branch. Richard, any update? Thanks Christophe > Thanks > > Christophe > . ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [arm/testsuite]: Skip pr97969.c if -mthumb is not compatible [PR target/97969] 2021-06-03 8:38 ` Christophe Lyon @ 2021-06-03 8:39 ` Christophe Lyon 0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Christophe Lyon @ 2021-06-03 8:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Earnshaw; +Cc: gcc Patches On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 at 10:38, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 at 17:03, Christophe Lyon > <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 at 15:00, Richard Earnshaw > > <Richard.Earnshaw@foss.arm.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 02/03/2021 18:35, Christophe Lyon wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 19:18, Richard Earnshaw > > > > <Richard.Earnshaw@foss.arm.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> On 02/03/2021 18:14, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > >>> On 02/03/2021 18:10, Christophe Lyon wrote: > > > >>>> On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 17:25, Richard Earnshaw > > > >>>> <Richard.Earnshaw@foss.arm.com> wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> On 02/03/2021 16:19, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > >>>>>> On 01/03/2021 15:26, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > >>>>>>> Ping? > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 at 10:01, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Ping? > > > >>>>>>>> I guess that's obvious enough? > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 10:03, Christophe Lyon > > > >>>>>>>> <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Depending on how the toolchain is configured or how the testsuite is > > > >>>>>>>>> executed, -mthumb may not be compatible. Like for other tests, skip > > > >>>>>>>>> pr97969.c in this case. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> For instance arm-linux-gnueabihf and -march=armv5t in RUNTESTFLAGS. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> 2021-01-27 Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> gcc/testsuite/ > > > >>>>>>>>> PR target/97969 > > > >>>>>>>>> * gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c: Skip if thumb mode is not available. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c > > > >>>>>>>>> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c > > > >>>>>>>>> index 714a1d1..0b5d07f 100644 > > > >>>>>>>>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c > > > >>>>>>>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c > > > >>>>>>>>> @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@ > > > >>>>>>>>> /* { dg-do compile } */ > > > >>>>>>>>> +/* { dg-skip-if "" { ! { arm_thumb1_ok || arm_thumb2_ok } } } */ > > > >>>>>>>>> /* { dg-options "-std=c99 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mthumb -w -Os" } */ > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> typedef a[23]; > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> I'm working on a patch to make this sort of change unnecessary (I hope). > > > >>>>>> Just running some final checks. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> R. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Ah, wait. This one already has an explicit -mthumb, so my patch won't > > > >>>>> affect this. But why is -mthumb needed for this test anyway? It's just > > > >>>>> a compilation test, so why not drop that and we'll generally get better > > > >>>>> coverage all round. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> For instance I see the test fail for target arm-none-linux-gnueabihf > > > >>>> --with-mode arm --with-cpu cortex-a9 --with-fpu vfp > > > >>>> and running the tests with -march=armv5t > > > >>>> > > > >>>> We get the famous thumb-1 + hard-float ABI not supported. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I guess -mthumb is inherited from the bug report? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Christophe > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >>> dropping the -mthumb should fix that though? > > > >>> > > > >>> In fact, I'd drop -Os as well, it's not needed as -Os is just one of the > > > >>> many options that are used to build this test already. > > > >>> > > > >>> R. > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> But maybe then we need to change dg-options into dg-add-options. > > > >> > > > > > > > > Not sure to follow: the test is compiled only once, with: > > > > -std=c99 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mthumb -w -Os > > > > in my logs > > > > > > > > > > I think it's only run the once /because/ the test sets dg-options rather > > > than dg-add-options. > > > > > > > Hi, sorry for the delay... > > I guess you mean dg-additional-options ? > > I did try that, to be sure, but the tests in gcc.target/arm are only > > compiled once. > > > > Back to the original discussion, if we drop -mthumb, which is required > > according to the PR (?), how do we ensure coverage? Sure I'm running > > the testsuite with various RUNTESTFLAGS settings, but wouldn't it be > > better to test what the PR reports by default? > > > > Hi, > > I'm resurrecting this discussion since Vladimir backported his patch > to gcc-9, and I just received a new failure warning from validation on > that branch. > Sorry, I meant gcc-10. > Richard, any update? > > Thanks > > Christophe > > > Thanks > > > > Christophe > > . ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-06-03 8:39 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2021-01-27 9:03 [arm/testsuite]: Skip pr97969.c if -mthumb is not compatible [PR target/97969] Christophe Lyon 2021-02-03 9:01 ` Christophe Lyon 2021-03-01 15:26 ` Christophe Lyon 2021-03-02 16:19 ` Richard Earnshaw 2021-03-02 16:25 ` Richard Earnshaw 2021-03-02 18:10 ` Christophe Lyon 2021-03-02 18:14 ` Richard Earnshaw 2021-03-02 18:17 ` Richard Earnshaw 2021-03-02 18:35 ` Christophe Lyon 2021-03-03 14:00 ` Richard Earnshaw 2021-03-15 16:03 ` Christophe Lyon 2021-06-03 8:38 ` Christophe Lyon 2021-06-03 8:39 ` 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).