On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 19:18, Richard Earnshaw
<richard.earns...@foss.arm.com> wrote:
>
> On 02/03/2021 18:14, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > On 02/03/2021 18:10, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 17:25, Richard Earnshaw
> >> <richard.earns...@foss.arm.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 02/03/2021 16:19, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >>>> On 01/03/2021 15:26, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >>>>> Ping?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 at 10:01, Christophe Lyon
> >>>>> <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ping?
> >>>>>> I guess that's obvious enough?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 10:03, Christophe Lyon
> >>>>>> <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Depending on how the toolchain is configured or how the testsuite is
> >>>>>>> executed, -mthumb may not be compatible. Like for other tests, skip
> >>>>>>> pr97969.c in this case.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> For instance arm-linux-gnueabihf and -march=armv5t in RUNTESTFLAGS.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 2021-01-27 Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> gcc/testsuite/
> >>>>>>> PR target/97969
> >>>>>>> * gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c: Skip if thumb mode is not available.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c
> >>>>>>> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c
> >>>>>>> index 714a1d1..0b5d07f 100644
> >>>>>>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c
> >>>>>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c
> >>>>>>> @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
> >>>>>>> /* { dg-do compile } */
> >>>>>>> +/* { dg-skip-if "" { ! { arm_thumb1_ok || arm_thumb2_ok } } } */
> >>>>>>> /* { dg-options "-std=c99 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mthumb -w -Os" }
> >>>>>>> */
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> typedef a[23];
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm working on a patch to make this sort of change unnecessary (I hope).
> >>>> Just running some final checks.
> >>>>
> >>>> R.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Ah, wait. This one already has an explicit -mthumb, so my patch won't
> >>> affect this. But why is -mthumb needed for this test anyway? It's just
> >>> a compilation test, so why not drop that and we'll generally get better
> >>> coverage all round.
> >>>
> >>
> >> For instance I see the test fail for target arm-none-linux-gnueabihf
> >> --with-mode arm --with-cpu cortex-a9 --with-fpu vfp
> >> and running the tests with -march=armv5t
> >>
> >> We get the famous thumb-1 + hard-float ABI not supported.
> >>
> >> I guess -mthumb is inherited from the bug report?
> >>
> >> Christophe
> >>
> >
> > dropping the -mthumb should fix that though?
> >
> > In fact, I'd drop -Os as well, it's not needed as -Os is just one of the
> > many options that are used to build this test already.
> >
> > R.
> >
>
> But maybe then we need to change dg-options into dg-add-options.
>
Not sure to follow: the test is compiled only once, with:
-std=c99 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mthumb -w -Os
in my logs
> R.
