Re: [PATCH] testsuite: Add _link flavor for several arm_arch* and arm* effective-targets

[Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4003 bytes --]

On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 at 15:46, Kyrylo Tkachov <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com> wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>
> > Sent: Friday, July 7, 2023 8:52 AM
> > To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Kyrylo Tkachov <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>;
> > Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>
> > Cc: Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>
> > Subject: [PATCH] testsuite: Add _link flavor for several arm_arch* and
> arm*
> > effective-targets
> >
> > For arm targets, we generate many effective-targets with
> > check_effective_target_FUNC_multilib and
> > check_effective_target_arm_arch_FUNC_multilib which check if we can
> > link and execute a simple program with a given set of flags/multilibs.
> >
> > In some cases however, it's possible to link but not to execute a
> > program, so this patch adds similar _link effective-targets which only
> > check if link succeeds.
> >
> > The patch does not uupdate the documentation as it already lacks the
> > numerous existing related effective-targets.
>
> I think this looks ok but...
>
> >
> > 2023-07-07  Christophe Lyon  <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>
> >
> >       gcc/testsuite/
> >       * lib/target-supports.exp (arm_*FUNC_link): New effective-targets.
> > ---
> >  gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-
> > supports.exp
> > index c04db2be7f9..d33bc077418 100644
> > --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> > @@ -5129,6 +5129,14 @@ foreach { armfunc armflag armdefs } {
> >           return "$flags FLAG"
> >       }
> >
> > +        proc check_effective_target_arm_arch_FUNC_link { } {
> > +         return [check_no_compiler_messages arm_arch_FUNC_link
> > executable {
> > +             #include <stdint.h>
> > +             int dummy;
> > +             int main (void) { return 0; }
> > +         } [add_options_for_arm_arch_FUNC ""]]
> > +     }
> > +
> >       proc check_effective_target_arm_arch_FUNC_multilib { } {
> >           return [check_runtime arm_arch_FUNC_multilib {
> >               int
> > @@ -5906,6 +5914,7 @@ proc add_options_for_arm_v8_2a_bf16_neon {
> > flags } {
> >  #   arm_v8m_main_cde: Armv8-m CDE (Custom Datapath Extension).
> >  #   arm_v8m_main_cde_fp: Armv8-m CDE with FP registers.
> >  #   arm_v8_1m_main_cde_mve: Armv8.1-m CDE with MVE.
> > +#   arm_v8_1m_main_cde_mve_fp: Armv8.1-m CDE with MVE with FP
> > support.
> >  # Usage:
> >  #   /* { dg-require-effective-target arm_v8m_main_cde_ok } */
> >  #   /* { dg-add-options arm_v8m_main_cde } */
> > @@ -5965,6 +5974,24 @@ foreach { armfunc armflag armdef arminc } {
> >           return "$flags $et_FUNC_flags"
> >       }
> >
> > +        proc check_effective_target_FUNC_link { } {
> > +         if { ! [check_effective_target_FUNC_ok] } {
> > +             return 0;
> > +         }
> > +         return [check_no_compiler_messages FUNC_link executable {
> > +             #if !(DEF)
> > +             #error "DEF failed"
> > +             #endif
> > +             #include <arm_cde.h>
>
> ... why is arm_cde.h included here?
>
> It's the very same code as  check_effective_target_FUNC_multilib below.

I think it's needed in case the toolchain's default configuration is not
able to support CDE. I believe these tests would fail if the toolchain
defaults
to -mfloat-abi=soft (the gnu/stubs-{soft|hard}.h "usual" error)

I added this chunk for consistency with the other one, it's not needed at
the moment.

Christophe



> +             INC
> > +             int
> > +             main (void)
> > +             {
> > +                 return 0;
> > +             }
> > +         } [add_options_for_FUNC ""]]
> > +     }
> > +
> >       proc check_effective_target_FUNC_multilib { } {
> >           if { ! [check_effective_target_FUNC_ok] } {
> >               return 0;
> > --
> > 2.34.1
>
>