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
}
--
H.J.
