> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 2:59 PM
> To: Kyrylo Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com>
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Richard Earnshaw
> <richard.earns...@arm.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] testsuite: Add _link flavor for several arm_arch* and
> arm* effective-targets
>
>
>
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 at 15:46, Kyrylo Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com
> <mailto:kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com> > wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org
> <mailto:christophe.l...@linaro.org> >
> > Sent: Friday, July 7, 2023 8:52 AM
> > To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> ;
> Kyrylo Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com
> <mailto:kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com> >;
> > Richard Earnshaw <richard.earns...@arm.com
> <mailto:richard.earns...@arm.com> >
> > Cc: Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org
> <mailto:christophe.l...@linaro.org> >
> > Subject: [PATCH] testsuite: Add _link flavor for several arm_arch*
> and arm*
> > effective-targets
> >
> > For arm targets, we generate many effective-targets with
> > check_effective_target_FUNC_multilib and
> > check_effective_target_arm_arch_FUNC_multilib which check if we
> can
> > link and execute a simple program with a given set of
> flags/multilibs.
> >
> > In some cases however, it's possible to link but not to execute a
> > program, so this patch adds similar _link effective-targets which only
> > check if link succeeds.
> >
> > The patch does not uupdate the documentation as it already lacks
> the
> > numerous existing related effective-targets.
>
> I think this looks ok but...
>
> >
> > 2023-07-07 Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org
> <mailto:christophe.l...@linaro.org> >
> >
> > gcc/testsuite/
> > * lib/target-supports.exp (arm_*FUNC_link): New effective-
> targets.
> > ---
> > gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp | 27
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-
> > supports.exp
> > index c04db2be7f9..d33bc077418 100644
> > --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> > @@ -5129,6 +5129,14 @@ foreach { armfunc armflag armdefs } {
> > return "$flags FLAG"
> > }
> >
> > + proc check_effective_target_arm_arch_FUNC_link { } {
> > + return [check_no_compiler_messages arm_arch_FUNC_link
> > executable {
> > + #include <stdint.h>
> > + int dummy;
> > + int main (void) { return 0; }
> > + } [add_options_for_arm_arch_FUNC ""]]
> > + }
> > +
> > proc check_effective_target_arm_arch_FUNC_multilib { } {
> > return [check_runtime arm_arch_FUNC_multilib {
> > int
> > @@ -5906,6 +5914,7 @@ proc
> add_options_for_arm_v8_2a_bf16_neon {
> > flags } {
> > # arm_v8m_main_cde: Armv8-m CDE (Custom Datapath
> Extension).
> > # arm_v8m_main_cde_fp: Armv8-m CDE with FP registers.
> > # arm_v8_1m_main_cde_mve: Armv8.1-m CDE with MVE.
> > +# arm_v8_1m_main_cde_mve_fp: Armv8.1-m CDE with MVE with
> FP
> > support.
> > # Usage:
> > # /* { dg-require-effective-target arm_v8m_main_cde_ok } */
> > # /* { dg-add-options arm_v8m_main_cde } */
> > @@ -5965,6 +5974,24 @@ foreach { armfunc armflag armdef
> arminc } {
> > return "$flags $et_FUNC_flags"
> > }
> >
> > + proc check_effective_target_FUNC_link { } {
> > + if { ! [check_effective_target_FUNC_ok] } {
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > + return [check_no_compiler_messages FUNC_link executable {
> > + #if !(DEF)
> > + #error "DEF failed"
> > + #endif
> > + #include <arm_cde.h>
>
> ... why is arm_cde.h included here?
>
>
>
> It's the very same code as check_effective_target_FUNC_multilib below.
>
> I think it's needed in case the toolchain's default configuration is not
> able to support CDE. I believe these tests would fail if the toolchain
> defaults
> to -mfloat-abi=soft (the gnu/stubs-{soft|hard}.h "usual" error)
>
> I added this chunk for consistency with the other one, it's not needed at the
> moment.
Ah, this is a CDE-specific region. I couldn't tell from the default diff
context, but having looked at the code around it, it makes sense.
Ok.
Thanks,
Kyrill
>
> Christophe
>
>
>
>
> > + INC
> > + int
> > + main (void)
> > + {
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > + } [add_options_for_FUNC ""]]
> > + }
> > +
> > proc check_effective_target_FUNC_multilib { } {
> > if { ! [check_effective_target_FUNC_ok] } {
> > return 0;
> > --
> > 2.34.1
>
>
