Re: [testsuite] Clean up effective_target cache

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

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?

-- 
H.J.