On 21 December 2017 at 15:24, Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com> wrote: > The 12/14/2017 20:46, Christophe Lyon wrote: >> On 14 December 2017 at 11:56, Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com> >> wrote: >> > The 12/13/2017 08:49, Christophe Lyon wrote: >> >> On 12 December 2017 at 18:29, Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> > Hi All, >> >> > >> >> > The previous test made use of arm_neon.h which made the whole test >> >> > rather fragile and only applicable to some of the arm targets. >> >> > >> >> > So instead I make use of different fpus now to test the generation of >> >> > fmla instructions. The actual instruction itself is not tested as all >> >> > we care about if that the proper .fpu directives are generated. >> >> > >> >> > Regtested on arm-none-eabi and arm-none-linux-gnueabihf >> >> > with no regressions. >> >> > >> >> > Ok for trunk? >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > gcc/testsuite/ >> >> > 2017-12-12 Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com> >> >> > >> >> > PR target/82641 >> >> > * gcc.target/arm/pragma_fpu_attribute.c: New. >> >> > * gcc.target/arm/pragma_fpu_attribute_2.c: New. >> > >> > Hi Christophe, >> > >> > My apologies, I have rebased the patch. >> > New Changelog: >> > >> > gcc/testsuite/ >> > 2017-12-14 Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com> >> > >> > PR target/82641 >> > * gcc.target/arm/pragma_fpu_attribute.c: Rewrite to use >> > no NEON. >> > * gcc.target/arm/pragma_fpu_attribute_2.c: Likewise. >> > >> >> Hi, >> >> Sorry I think there is still something wrong with this patch. >> In pragma_fpu_attribute_2.c, you are not removing >> #include <arm_neon.h> >> as the ChangeLog seems to imply? >> > > Sorry that was extremely sloppy of me. I noticed the changelog after sending > but hadn't noticed the #include being left in. > >> So, with this patch, there are problems on arm-none-linux-gnueabi and >> arm-none-eabi: >> FAIL: gcc.target/arm/pragma_fpu_attribute.c scan-assembler-times >> \\.fpu\\s+vfpv3-d16 1 (found 0 times) >> FAIL: gcc.target/arm/pragma_fpu_attribute.c scan-assembler-times >> \\.fpu\\s+vfpv4 1 (found 0 times) >> >> and pragma_fpu_attribute_2.c still fails to compile: >> In file included from >> /gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pragma_fpu_attribute_2.c:6: >> /aci-gcc-fsf/builds/gcc-fsf-gccsrc/obj-arm-none-eabi/gcc3/gcc/include/arm_neon.h:31:2: >> error: #error "NEON intrinsics not available with the soft-float ABI. >> Please use -mfloat-abi=softfp or -mfloat-abi=hard" >> >> I'm not sure why you don't see this when testing on arm-none-eabi? > > It's because I don't have a compiler configured with only -mfloat-abi=soft. > So when I run > the tests it's always able to just change the ABI. I resorted to manually > testing it. > > I've now prevented the tests from running at all on soft float only targets. > This should fix > the problem once and for all. > > Regtested on arm-none-eabi, arm-none-linux-gnueabi and > arm-none-linux-gnueabihf. > > Thanks and sorry for the noise, > Tamar > > Ok for trunk? > > gcc/testsuite/ > 2017-12-21 Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com> > > PR target/82641 > * gcc.target/arm/pragma_fpu_attribute.c: Rewrite to use > no NEON and require softfp or hard float-abi. > * gcc.target/arm/pragma_fpu_attribute_2.c: Likewise. > FWIW, this version passes validation on my side. Thanks
>> >> If you want to see more details: >> http://people.linaro.org/~christophe.lyon/cross-validation/gcc-test-patches/255624-rb8655.patch-2/report-build-info.html >> (ignore the lines with "interrupted", this means there was a problem >> on the host during the build) >> >> Christophe >> >> >> >> > >> >> Sorry, it seems your patch does not apply against ToT, and >> >> the ChangeLog looks incorrect (these are not new files) >> >> >> >> Christophe >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Tamar >> > >> > -- > > --
