On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 4 September 2015 at 15:58, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 6:15 AM, Christophe Lyon >> <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote: >>> On 4 September 2015 at 14:13, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 4:47 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 4:27 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 4:18 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Christophe Lyon >>>>>>> <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3 September 2015 at 13:31, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Christophe Lyon >>>>>>>>> <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 1 September 2015 at 16:04, Christophe Lyon >>>>>>>>>> <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 25 August 2015 at 17:31, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2015, at 1:14 AM, Christophe Lyon >>>>>>>>>>>> <christophe.l...@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.
