From: Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>
To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
Cc: Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net>,
"gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [testsuite] Clean up effective_target cache
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 15:02:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKdteObJDWfvPMnxOhMuYLPqgaHZp86afcJwJk0wtFhKPgyBSw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMe9rOrrVsZQEVM3ftENQqORdN_HtkEOtE5ZQaRor7i9qQTA=g@mail.gmail.com>
On 4 September 2015 at 16:54, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Christophe Lyon
> <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
>> On 4 September 2015 at 15:58, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 6:15 AM, Christophe Lyon
>>> <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>> On 4 September 2015 at 14:13, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 4:47 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 4:27 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 4:18 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Christophe Lyon
>>>>>>>> <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3 September 2015 at 13:31, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Christophe Lyon
>>>>>>>>>> <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1 September 2015 at 16:04, Christophe Lyon
>>>>>>>>>>> <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25 August 2015 at 17:31, Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2015, at 1:14 AM, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some subsets of the tests override ALWAYS_CXXFLAGS or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TEST_ALWAYS_FLAGS and perform effective_target support tests using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these modified flags.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This patch adds a new function 'clear_effective_target_cache', which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is called at the end of every .exp file which overrides
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ALWAYS_CXXFLAGS or TEST_ALWAYS_FLAGS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, a simple English directive somewhere that says, if one changes ALWAYS_CXXFLAGS or TEST_ALWAYS_FLAGS then they should do a clear_effective_target_cache at the end as the target cache can make decisions based upon the flags, and those decisions need to be redone when the flags change would be nice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do wonder, do we need to reexamine when setting the flags? I’m thinking of a sequence like: non-thumb default, is_thumb, set flags (thumb), is_thumb. Anyway, safe to punt this until someone discovers it or is reasonable sure it happens.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, all looks good. Ok.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is what I have committed (r227372).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hmmm, in fact this was r227401.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It caused:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(arm_neon_ok,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(arm_neon_ok,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(arm_neon_ok,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(dfp,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(fsanitize_address,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(ia32,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(ia32,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(ia32,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(ia32,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(ia32,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(ilp32,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(ilp32,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(ilp32,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(ilp32,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(label_values,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(lp64,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(lp64,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(lp64,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(ptr32plus,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(ptr32plus,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> on Linux/x86-64:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2015-09/msg00167.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'll have a look.
>>>>>>>>> That's the configuration I used to check before committing, but I am
>>>>>>>>> going to re-check.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> proc check_cached_effective_target { prop args } {
>>>>>>>> global et_cache
>>>>>>>> global et_prop_list
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> set target [current_target_name]
>>>>>>>> if {![info exists et_cache($prop,target)]
>>>>>>>> || $et_cache($prop,target) != $target} {
>>>>>>>> verbose "check_cached_effective_target $prop: checking $target" 2
>>>>>>>> set et_cache($prop,target) $target
>>>>>>>> set et_cache($prop,value) [uplevel eval $args]
>>>>>>>> lappend et_prop_list $prop
>>>>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Aren't you appending $pop to et_prop_list even if it may be already
>>>>>>>> on the list?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> verbose "check_cached_effective_target cached list is now:
>>>>>>>> $et_prop_list" 2
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>> set value $et_cache($prop,value)
>>>>>>>> verbose "check_cached_effective_target $prop: returning $value for
>>>>>>>> $target" 2
>>>>>>>> return $value
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> H.J.
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
>>>>>>> b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
>>>>>>> index aad45f9..a6c16fe 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
>>>>>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
>>>>>>> @@ -125,7 +125,9 @@ proc check_cached_effective_target { prop args } {
>>>>>>> verbose "check_cached_effective_target $prop: checking $target" 2
>>>>>>> set et_cache($prop,target) $target
>>>>>>> set et_cache($prop,value) [uplevel eval $args]
>>>>>>> - lappend et_prop_list $prop
>>>>>>> + if {[lsearch $et_prop_list $prop] < 0} {
>>>>>>> + lappend et_prop_list $prop
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> verbose "check_cached_effective_target cached list is now: $et_prop_list" 2
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> set value $et_cache($prop,value)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It should be
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if {![info exists et_prop_list]
>>>>>> || [lsearch $et_prop_list $prop] < 0} {
>>>>>> lappend et_prop_list $prop
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is a patch. OK for trunk?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It makes sense, indeed, although I still haven't managed to reproduce
>>>> the issue you reported.
>>>
>>> The failure is random with parallel check on machines with >= 8 cores.
>>>
>> In fact that's because you are running the testsuite with several
>> values for 'target' (unix and unix/-m32), which indeed result in
>> appending $prop twice.
>
> Is my patch correct or you have a different fix?
>
It's OK for me, but I can't approve it.
> --
> H.J.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-04 14:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-08-25 8:17 Christophe Lyon
2015-08-25 15:44 ` Mike Stump
2015-09-01 14:12 ` Christophe Lyon
2015-09-02 14:02 ` Christophe Lyon
2015-09-03 11:36 ` H.J. Lu
2015-09-03 15:10 ` Christophe Lyon
2015-09-04 11:19 ` H.J. Lu
2015-09-04 11:28 ` H.J. Lu
2015-09-04 12:13 ` H.J. Lu
2015-09-04 12:35 ` H.J. Lu
2015-09-04 13:21 ` Christophe Lyon
2015-09-04 14:21 ` H.J. Lu
2015-09-04 14:54 ` Christophe Lyon
2015-09-04 14:59 ` H.J. Lu
2015-09-04 15:02 ` Christophe Lyon [this message]
2015-09-04 15:16 ` H.J. Lu
2015-09-04 19:29 ` Mike Stump
2015-08-25 20:28 ` Jeff Law
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=CAKdteObJDWfvPMnxOhMuYLPqgaHZp86afcJwJk0wtFhKPgyBSw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=christophe.lyon@linaro.org \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
--cc=mikestump@comcast.net \
/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).