On 4 September 2015 at 15:58, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > In fact that's because you are running the testsuite with several values for 'target' (unix and unix/-m32), which indeed result in appending $prop twice.
Thanks > > -- > H.J.
