* Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org> [2016-11-18 13:21:50 +0100]:
> On 16 November 2016 at 23:12, Andrew Burgess
> <andrew.burg...@embecosm.com> wrote:
> > * Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> [2016-11-16 12:59:53 -0800]:
> >
> >> On Nov 16, 2016, at 12:09 PM, Andrew Burgess <andrew.burg...@embecosm.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > My only remaining concern is the new tests, I've tried to restrict
> >> > them to targets that I suspect they'll pass on with:
> >> >
> >> > /* { dg-final-use { scan-assembler "\.section\[\t
> >> > \]*\.text\.unlikely\[\\n\\r\]+\[\t \]*\.size\[\t \]*foo\.cold\.0" {
> >> > target *-*-linux* *-*-gnu* } } } */
> >> >
> >> > but I'm still nervous that I'm going to introduce test failures. Is
> >> > there any advice / guidance I should follow before I commit, or are
> >> > folk pretty relaxed so long as I've made a reasonable effort?
> >>
> >> So, if you are worried about the way the line is constructed, I usually
> >> test it by misspelling the *-*-linux* *-*-gnu* part as *-*-linNOTux*
> >> *-*-gnNOTu* and see if the test then doesn't run on your machine. If it
> >> doesn't then you can be pretty confident that only machines that match the
> >> target triplet can be impacted. I usually do this type of testing by
> >> running the test case in isolation (not the full tests suite). Anyway, do
> >> the best you can, and don't worry about t it too much, learn from the
> >> experience, even if it goes wrong in some way. If it did go wrong, just
> >> be responsive (don't check it in just before a 6 week vacation) about
> >> fixing it, if you can.
> >>
> >
> > Thanks for the feedback.
> >
> > Change committed as revision 242519. If anyone sees any issues just
> > let me know.
> >
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Sorry for the delay, there are so many commits these days, with so
> many regression
> reports to check manually before reporting here....
>
> So, your new test fails on arm* targets:
After a little digging I think the problem might be that
-freorder-blocks-and-partition is not supported on arm.
This should be detected as the new tests include:
/* { dg-require-effective-target freorder } */
however this test passed on arm as -freorder-blocks-and-partition does
not issue any warning unless -fprofile-use is also passed.
The patch below extends check_effective_target_freorder to check using
-fprofile-use. With this change in place the tests are skipped on
arm.
All feedback welcome,
Thanks,
Andrew
---
arm/gcc: Tighten checks in check_effective_target_freorder
In check_effective_target_freorder we check to see if the target
supports -freorder-blocks-and-partition. However we disable
-freorder-blocks-and-partition when -fprofile-use is not supplied so
for some targets we'll not see any message about lack of support for
-freorder-blocks-and-partition unless -fprofile-use is also passed.
This commit extends check_effective_target_freorder to first try
-freorder-blocks-and-partition on its own, then try -fprofile-use and
-freorder-blocks-and-partition.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_freorder): Check
additional case.
---
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog | 5 +++++
gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp | 8 +++++++-
2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
index 8a2abd2..0716792 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
@@ -1014,9 +1014,15 @@ proc check_effective_target_fstack_protector {} {
# for trivial code, 0 otherwise.
proc check_effective_target_freorder {} {
- return [check_no_compiler_messages freorder object {
+ if { [check_no_compiler_messages freorder object {
void foo (void) { }
} "-freorder-blocks-and-partition"]
+ && [check_no_compiler_messages fprofile_use_freorder object {
+ void foo (void) { }
+ } "-fprofile-use -freorder-blocks-and-partition"] } {
+ return 1
+ }
+ return 0
}
# Return 1 if -fpic and -fPIC are supported, as in no warnings or errors
--
2.6.4
