From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 66883 invoked by alias); 4 Sep 2015 15:02:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 66871 invoked by uid 89); 4 Sep 2015 15:02:10 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-oi0-f46.google.com Received: from mail-oi0-f46.google.com (HELO mail-oi0-f46.google.com) (209.85.218.46) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 04 Sep 2015 15:02:07 +0000 Received: by oiev17 with SMTP id v17so13374979oie.1 for ; Fri, 04 Sep 2015 08:02:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.79.76 with SMTP id d73mr3533056oib.108.1441378925160; Fri, 04 Sep 2015 08:02:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.170.36 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 08:02:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <14DA89C6-4F95-4A90-847A-6B6E6909475A@comcast.net> Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 15:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [testsuite] Clean up effective_target cache From: "H.J. Lu" To: Christophe Lyon Cc: Mike Stump , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-09/txt/msg00359.txt.bz2 On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On 4 September 2015 at 16:54, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Christophe Lyon >> wrote: >>> On 4 September 2015 at 15:58, H.J. Lu wrote: >>>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 6:15 AM, Christophe Lyon >>>> wrote: >>>>> On 4 September 2015 at 14:13, H.J. Lu wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 4:47 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 4:27 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 4:18 AM, H.J. Lu wrot= e: >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Christophe Lyon >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3 September 2015 at 13:31, H.J. Lu wrot= e: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Christophe Lyon >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1 September 2015 at 16:04, Christophe Lyon >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25 August 2015 at 17:31, Mike Stump wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2015, at 1:14 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some subsets of the tests override ALWAYS_CXXFLAGS or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TEST_ALWAYS_FLAGS and perform effective_target support test= s using >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these modified flags. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This patch adds a new function 'clear_effective_target_cach= e', 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 c= hanges ALWAYS_CXXFLAGS or TEST_ALWAYS_FLAGS then they should do a clear_eff= ective_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 chang= e would be nice. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do wonder, do we need to reexamine when setting the flags?= I=E2=80=99m thinking of a sequence like: non-thumb default, is_thumb, set= flags (thumb), is_thumb. Anyway, safe to punt this until someone discover= s 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 eleme= nt in array >>>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(arm_neon_ok,value)": no such eleme= nt in array >>>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(arm_neon_ok,value)": no such eleme= nt in array >>>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(dfp,value)": no such element in ar= ray >>>>>>>>>>> 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 a= rray >>>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(ia32,value)": no such element in a= rray >>>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(ia32,value)": no such element in a= rray >>>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(ia32,value)": no such element in a= rray >>>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(ia32,value)": no such element in a= rray >>>>>>>>>>> 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 elem= ent in array >>>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(lp64,value)": no such element in a= rray >>>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(lp64,value)": no such element in a= rray >>>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(lp64,value)": no such element in a= rray >>>>>>>>>>> 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) !=3D $target} { >>>>>>>>> verbose "check_cached_effective_target $prop: checking $t= arget" 2 >>>>>>>>> set et_cache($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 alrea= dy >>>>>>>>> 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 $valu= e 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_p= rop_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 >=3D 8 core= s. >>>> >>> 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. --=20 H.J.