On 10/8/18 11:55 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 08/10/18 10:47, Martin Liška wrote:
>> On 10/8/18 10:46 AM, Renlin Li wrote:
>>> Hi Martin,
>>>
>>> pr82625.C failed on compiler builds which don't support "default" and "avx"
>>> target.
>>> For example, arm/aarch64 native linux gcc compiler.
>>>
>>>
>>> As I found in this gcc wiki:
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FunctionMultiVersioning
>>> '''
>>> This support is available in GCC 4.8 and later. Support is only available
>>> in C++ for i386 targets.
>>> '''
>>>
>>> Should the test be guarded with a target selector or require function
>>> multi-versioning instead of ifunc?
>>
>> Hi.
>>
>> Sure, sorry for the breakage. I'm going to install following tested patch.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Renlin
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/04/2018 02:56 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>>> Hi.
>>>>
>>>> When having a pair of target clones where foo calls bar, if the target
>>>> attribute are equal we can redirect the call and not use ifunc dispatcher.
>>>>
>>>> Patch survives regression tests on x86_64-linux-gnu.
>>>> Ready for trunk?
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>>>
>>>> 2018-10-04 Martin Liska <mli...@suse.cz>
>>>>
>>>> PR ipa/82625
>>>> * multiple_target.c (redirect_to_specific_clone): New function.
>>>> (ipa_target_clone): Use it.
>>>> * tree-inline.c: Fix comment.
>>>>
>>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>>>
>>>> 2018-10-04 Martin Liska <mli...@suse.cz>
>>>>
>>>> PR ipa/82625
>>>> * g++.dg/ext/pr82625.C: New test.
>>>> ---
>>>> gcc/multiple_target.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/pr82625.C | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> gcc/tree-inline.c | 2 +-
>>>> 3 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/pr82625.C
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> 0001-Limit-a-MV-test-just-for-x86-target.patch
>>
>>
>> From e3053abe58eba832262db0af77980012010a642c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: marxin <mli...@suse.cz>
>> Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:07:29 +0200
>> Subject: [PATCH] Limit a MV test just for x86 target.
>>
>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>
>> 2018-10-08 Martin Liska <mli...@suse.cz>
>>
>> * g++.dg/ext/pr82625.C: Add dg-compile filter.
>> ---
>> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/pr82625.C | 1 +
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/pr82625.C
>> b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/pr82625.C
>> index 47bd2df1104..59b174f8c51 100644
>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/pr82625.C
>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/pr82625.C
>> @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
>> /* { dg-do compile } */
>> /* { dg-require-ifunc "" } */
>> /* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-optimized" } */
>> +/* { dg-do compile { target i?86-*-* x86_64-*-* } } */
>>
>> __attribute__ ((target ("default")))
>> static unsigned foo(const char *buf, unsigned size) {
>>
>
> Which begs the question why is this not put under g++.target?
>
> R.
>
Agree, apparently we have quite some tests that should be moved:
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/pr57362.C:/* { dg-require-ifunc "" } */
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/pr57548.C:/* { dg-require-ifunc "" } */
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/pr82625.C:/* { dg-require-ifunc "" } */
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/pr85329-2.C:/* { dg-require-ifunc "" } */
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/pr85329.C:/* { dg-require-ifunc "" } */
...
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/mv*.C
I'll prepare patch for it.
Martin
