On 09/01/18 10:16, Tamar Christina wrote:
Ping,
Is the fix ok for trunk?
Hi Tamar,
Yes, thanks for pinging this.
I had reviewed it before the break but had forgotten to send an ok out.
Please commit.
Kyrill
Thanks,
Tamar
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christophe Lyon [mailto:christophe.l...@linaro.org]
> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 21:39
> To: Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com>
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; nd <n...@arm.com>; Ramana Radhakrishnan
> <ramana.radhakrish...@arm.com>; Richard Earnshaw
> <richard.earns...@arm.com>; ni...@redhat.com; Kyrylo Tkachov
> <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH][GCC][ARM] Fix fragile arm fpu attribute tests.
>
> 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-
<http://people.linaro.org/%7Echristophe.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
> >> >
> >> > --
> >
> > --
