* Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> [2016-11-28 15:08:46 -0700]:
> On 11/24/2016 02:40 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> > * Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org> [2016-11-21 13:47:09 +0100]:
> >
> > > On 20 November 2016 at 18:27, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 19, 2016, at 1:59 PM, Andrew Burgess
> > > > <andrew.burg...@embecosm.com> 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.
Thanks,
Andrew
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg02050.html
