public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrea Corallo <andrea.corallo@arm.com>
To: "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org,  nd <nd@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: [testsuite] fix lob tests for -mfloat-abi=hard
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 17:48:16 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <gkrmtz4t67j.fsf@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5f8151ec-ed6c-6beb-e06b-8d9587811be2@arm.com> (Richard Earnshaw's message of "Thu, 26 Nov 2020 14:34:26 +0000")

"Richard Earnshaw (lists)" <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com> writes:

> On 26/11/2020 13:53, Andrea Corallo via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I'd like to submit the following simple patch to clean some Low Loop
>> Overhead test failing on hard float configurations.
>> 
>> lob2.c and lob5.c are failing with: "'-mfloat-abi=hard': selected 
>> processor lacks an FPU".
>> 
>> lob3.c and lob5.c got "-mfloat-abi=soft and -mfloat-abi=hard may not
>> be used together".
>> 
>> Okay for trunk?
>> 
>> Thanks
>>   Andrea
>>   
>> 
>
> I think it would be better to try to do this with suitable
> require-effective-target rules (or something similar).  Forcing options
> should generally be a last resort and in particular using -mfpu should
> really be avoided as we're trying to move away from that.
>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/lob4.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/lob4.c
> ...
> -/* { dg-skip-if "avoid conflicting multilib options" { *-*-* } {
> "-marm" "-mcpu=*" } } */
> +/* { dg-skip-if "avoid conflicting multilib options" { *-*-* } {
> "-marm" "-mcpu=*" "-mfloat-abi=hard" } } */
>  /* { dg-options "-march=armv8.1-m.main -mthumb -O3 --save-temps
> -mfloat-abi=soft" } */
>  /* { dg-require-effective-target arm_softfloat } */
>
> Why is the effective target arm_softfloat not solving this particular
> conflict?

Good point,

I see is because we are defining __SOFTFP__ when compiling with
'-march=armv8.1-m.main+mve -mfloat-abi=hard'.

This sounds like a bug to me, correct?

If that's correct either we should consider also TARGET_HAVE_MVE and
TARGET_HAVE_MVE_FLOAT into arm_cpu_builtins when deciding for the
__SOFTFP__ definition or account them for our internal
TARGET_SOFT_FLOAT.  I guess the first is less invasive.

I'll come up with a patch unless I'm told that this is not a bug.

  Andrea

  reply	other threads:[~2020-11-26 16:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-11-26 13:53 Andrea Corallo
2020-11-26 14:34 ` Richard Earnshaw (lists)
2020-11-26 16:48   ` Andrea Corallo [this message]
2020-11-27 10:31     ` Andrea Corallo
2020-12-01 10:12       ` [PATCH V2] " Andrea Corallo
2020-12-08 11:09         ` Andrea Corallo
2020-12-11 11:21         ` Kyrylo Tkachov
2020-12-11 14:25           ` Andrea Corallo
2020-11-26 14:34 ` [PATCH] " Kyrylo Tkachov

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=gkrmtz4t67j.fsf@arm.com \
    --to=andrea.corallo@arm.com \
    --cc=Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=nd@arm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).