Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> writes:

> On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 15:30, Andrea Corallo <andrea.corallo@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 12:11, Andrea Corallo <andrea.corallo@arm.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> writes:
>> >>
>> >> [...]
>> >>
>> >> >> I think you need to add -mfloat-abi=hard to the dg-additional-options
>> >> >> otherwise vld1_lane_bf16_1.c
>> >> >> fails on targets with a soft float-abi default (eg arm-linux-gnueabi).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> See bf16_vldn_1.c.
>> >> >
>> >> > Actually that's not sufficient because in turn we get:
>> >> > /sysroot-arm-none-linux-gnueabi/usr/include/gnu/stubs.h:10:11: fatal
>> >> > error: gnu/stubs-hard.h: No such file or directory
>> >> >
>> >> > So you should check that -mfloat-abi=hard is supported.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ditto for the vst tests.
>> >>
>> >> Hi Christophe,
>> >>
>> >> this patch should implement your suggestions.
>> >>
>> >> On my arm-none-linux-gnueabi setup the tests were already skipped
>> >> as unsupported so if you could test and confirm this fixes the
>> >> issue you see would be great.
>> >
>> > Do you know why they are unsupported in your setup?
>>
>> We probably have a different GCC configuration.  Could you share how
>> it's configured your?
>>
> Sure, for instance:
> --target=arm-none-linux-gnueabi --with-float=soft --with-mode=arm
> --with-cpu=cortex-a9

Thanks, I see now what was going on, my gas has no bf16 support so the
test was marked as unsupported.  Dunno why I assumed
check_no_compiler_messages_nocache wasn't testing the whole compilation
process.

>> >> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
>> >> index 15f0649f8ae..2ab7e39756d 100644
>> >> --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
>> >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
>> >> @@ -5213,6 +5213,10 @@ proc check_effective_target_arm_v8_2a_bf16_neon_ok_nocache { } {
>> >>          return 0;
>> >>      }
>> >>
>> >> +    if { ! [check_effective_target_arm_hard_ok] } {
>> >> + return 0;
>> >> +    }
>> >> +
>> >>     foreach flags {"" "-mfloat-abi=hard -mfpu=neon-fp-armv8" "-mfloat-abi=softfp -mfpu=neon-fp-armv8" } {
>> >>         if { [check_no_compiler_messages_nocache arm_v8_2a_bf16_neon_ok object {
>> >>             #include <arm_neon.h>
>> >
>> > This seems strange since you would now exit early if
>> > check_effective_target_arm_hard_ok is false, so you'll never need the
>> > -mfloat-abi=softfp version of the flags.
>>
>> So IIUC your suggestion would be to test with higher priority softfp and
>> in case we decide to go for hardfp make sure
>> check_effective_target_arm_hard_ok is satisfied.  Am I correct?
>>
> ISTM that other tests that need hardfp check if it's supported in the
> test, not in other effective targets.
>
> For instance mve/intrinsics/mve_fpu1.c
>
> I can see that quite a few tests that use -mfloat-abi=hard do not
> check whether it's supported. Those I checked do not include
> arm_neon.h and thus do not end up with the gnu/stubs-hard.h error
> above.

I see thanks for the explaination.  The attached should do the job.

  Andrea