On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote: > 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. >
I will check it in as an obvious fix. -- H.J.
