From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17746 invoked by alias); 29 Nov 2016 17:36:03 -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 17721 invoked by uid 89); 29 Nov 2016 17:36:03 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=promised, H*M:9344, person X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 17:35:52 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70B624DD77; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 17:35:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-116-24.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.116.24]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id uATHZodU028832; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 12:35:50 -0500 Subject: Re: Ping: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gcc: Remove unneeded global flag. To: Andrew Burgess References: <03bef940-2b86-af7d-d2d2-b96b8283596f@redhat.com> <20161116200930.GG5975@embecosm.com> <20161116221217.GH5975@embecosm.com> <20161119215926.GX5975@embecosm.com> <20161124214002.GB4542@embecosm.com> <022b1cf4-a638-1a6d-2d9f-38d9740e8f5f@redhat.com> <20161129140247.GD5145@embecosm.com> Cc: Christophe Lyon , Mike Stump , Bernd Schmidt , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , Jakub Jelinek From: Jeff Law Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 17:36:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20161129140247.GD5145@embecosm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-11/txt/msg02910.txt.bz2 On 11/29/2016 07:02 AM, Andrew Burgess wrote: > * Jeff Law [2016-11-28 15:08:46 -0700]: > >> On 11/24/2016 02:40 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote: >>> * Christophe Lyon [2016-11-21 13:47:09 +0100]: >>> >>>> On 20 November 2016 at 18:27, Mike Stump wrote: >>>>> On Nov 19, 2016, at 1:59 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote: >>>>>>> So, your new test fails on arm* targets: >>>>>> >>>>>> After a little digging I think the problem might be that >>>>>> -freorder-blocks-and-partition is not supported on arm. >>>>>> >>>>>> This should be detected as the new tests include: >>>>>> >>>>>> /* { dg-require-effective-target freorder } */ >>>>>> >>>>>> however this test passed on arm as -freorder-blocks-and-partition does >>>>>> not issue any warning unless -fprofile-use is also passed. >>>>>> >>>>>> The patch below extends check_effective_target_freorder to check using >>>>>> -fprofile-use. With this change in place the tests are skipped on >>>>>> arm. >>>>> >>>>>> All feedback welcome, >>>>> >>>>> Seems reasonable, unless a -freorder-blocks-and-partition/-fprofile-use person thinks this is the wrong solution. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> As promised, I tested this patch: it makes >>>> gcc.dg/tree-prof/section-attr-[123].c >>>> unsupported on arm*, and thus they are not failing anymore :-) >>>> >>>> However, it also makes other tests unsupported, while they used to pass: >>>> >>>> gcc.dg/pr33648.c >>>> gcc.dg/pr46685.c >>>> gcc.dg/tree-prof/20041218-1.c >>>> gcc.dg/tree-prof/bb-reorg.c >>>> gcc.dg/tree-prof/cold_partition_label.c >>>> gcc.dg/tree-prof/comp-goto-1.c >>>> gcc.dg/tree-prof/pr34999.c >>>> gcc.dg/tree-prof/pr45354.c >>>> gcc.dg/tree-prof/pr50907.c >>>> gcc.dg/tree-prof/pr52027.c >>>> gcc.dg/tree-prof/va-arg-pack-1.c >>>> >>>> and failures are now unsupported: >>>> gcc.dg/tree-prof/cold_partition_label.c >>>> gcc.dg/tree-prof/section-attr-1.c >>>> gcc.dg/tree-prof/section-attr-2.c >>>> gcc.dg/tree-prof/section-attr-3.c >>>> >>>> So, maybe this patch is too strong? >>> >>> In all of the cases that used to pass the tests are compile only tests >>> (except for cold_partition_label, which I discuss below). >>> >>> On ARM passing -fprofile-use and -freorder-blocks-and-partition >>> results in a warning, and the -freorder-blocks-and-partition flag is >>> ignored. However, disabling -freorder-blocks-and-partition doesn't >>> stop any of the tests compiling, hence the passes. >>> >>> All the tests include: >>> >>> /* { dg-require-effective-target freorder } */ >>> >>> which I understand to mean, the tests requires the 'freorder' feature >>> to be supported (which corresponds to -freorder-blocks-and-partition). >>> >>> For cold_partition_label and my new tests it's seems clear that the >>> lack of support for -freorder-blocks-and-partition on ARM is the cause >>> of the test failures. >>> >>> So, is it reasonable to give up the other tests as "unsupported"? I'd >>> be inclined to say yes, but I happy to rework the patch if anyone has >>> a suggestion for an alternative approach. >> It is reasonable. It's not uncommon to have to drop various tests to >> UNSUPPORTED, particularly things which depend on assembler/linker >> capabilities, the target runtime system, etc. > > OK, I'm going to take that as approval for my patch[1]. I'll wait a > couple of days to give people a chance to correct me, then I'll push > the change. This should resolve the test regressions I introduced for > ARM. I'll just go ahead and explicitly ACK this. Thanks, jeff