Re: [testsuite] Clean up effective_target cache

["H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Christophe Lyon
<christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
> 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.
>

I will check it in as an obvious fix.

-- 
H.J.