On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Andi Kleen <a...@firstfloor.org> wrote: >>> After this patch, I got below test results with command line: make >>> check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="tree-prof.exp" -k >> >> That is expected if you don't have autofdo. You would prefer to hide it? >> >>> Also I got unstable test result in tree-prof.exp if I run >>> aforementioned command line with -jnum (parallelly). Does the patch >>> has problem in parallel testing? >> >> I haven't seen that. Unstable in what way? > For GCC doesn't support FDO, it run below tests as you said: > > PASS: gcc.dg/tree-prof/20041218-1.c compilation, -g > UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/tree-prof/20041218-1.c: Cannot run create_gcov > --binary /data/work/trunk/build/gcc/testsuite/gcc/20041218-1.gcda > > Normally, it doesn't create gcov data file, thus the next test is > unsupported. I guess in parallel test, the second test picks up gcov > data files from other process, which results in random pass. > Is it possible to not have these when fdo is supported? Hmm, typo: s/supported/not supported/.
Thanks, bin
