On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 at 10:38, Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 at 17:03, Christophe Lyon
> <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 at 15:00, Richard Earnshaw
> > <richard.earns...@foss.arm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 02/03/2021 18:35, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think it's only run the once /because/ the test sets dg-options rather
> > > than dg-add-options.
> > >
> >
> > Hi, sorry for the delay...
> > I guess you mean dg-additional-options ?
> > I did try that, to be sure, but the tests in gcc.target/arm are only
> > compiled once.
> >
> > Back to the original discussion, if we drop -mthumb, which is required
> > according to the PR (?), how do we ensure coverage? Sure I'm running
> > the testsuite with various RUNTESTFLAGS settings, but wouldn't it be
> > better to test what the PR reports by default?
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm resurrecting this discussion since Vladimir backported his patch
> to gcc-9, and I just received a new failure warning from validation on
> that branch.
>
Sorry, I meant gcc-10.
> Richard, any update?
>
> Thanks
>
> Christophe
>
> > Thanks
> >
> > Christophe
> > .
