On 4 September 2015 at 16:54, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Christophe Lyon > <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote: >> 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. > > Is my patch correct or you have a different fix? > It's OK for me, but I can't approve it.
> -- > H.J.
