On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 6:15 AM, Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 4 September 2015 at 14:13, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 4:47 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> 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 >>> } >>> >> >> Here is a patch. OK for trunk? >> > > It makes sense, indeed, although I still haven't managed to reproduce > the issue you reported.
The failure is random with parallel check on machines with >= 8 cores. -- H.J.
