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, 21 Dec 2017 21:38:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKdteOaucyNv9B4Swoy8iBvQU+CaDEsekF2sfADkL-Hbm=fSVw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171221142451.GA27574@arm.com>
On 21 December 2017 at 15:24, Tamar Christina <Tamar.Christina@arm.com> wrote:
> The 12/14/2017 20:46, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> 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?
>>
>
> Sorry that was extremely sloppy of me. I noticed the changelog after sending
> but hadn't noticed the #include being left in.
>
>> 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?
>
> It's because I don't have a compiler configured with only -mfloat-abi=soft. So when I run
> the tests it's always able to just change the ABI. I resorted to manually testing it.
>
> I've now prevented the tests from running at all on soft float only targets. This should fix
> the problem once and for all.
>
> Regtested on arm-none-eabi, arm-none-linux-gnueabi and arm-none-linux-gnueabihf.
>
> Thanks and sorry for the noise,
> Tamar
>
> Ok for trunk?
>
> gcc/testsuite/
> 2017-12-21 Tamar Christina <tamar.christina@arm.com>
>
> PR target/82641
> * gcc.target/arm/pragma_fpu_attribute.c: Rewrite to use
> no NEON and require softfp or hard float-abi.
> * gcc.target/arm/pragma_fpu_attribute_2.c: Likewise.
>
FWIW, this version passes validation on my side.
Thanks
>>
>> 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
>> >
>> > --
>
> --
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-21 21:38 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
2017-12-21 14:25 ` Tamar Christina
2017-12-21 21:38 ` Christophe Lyon [this message]
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='CAKdteOaucyNv9B4Swoy8iBvQU+CaDEsekF2sfADkL-Hbm=fSVw@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).