On 2025-01-19 21:20, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 12:17 PM Torbjörn SVENSSON <torbjorn.svens...@foss.st.com> wrote:Ok for trunk? -- Most baremetal toolchains will not have an implementation for alarm and sigaction as they are target specific. For arm-none-eabi with newlib, function signatures are exposed, but there is no implmentation and thus the test cases causes a undefined symbol link error. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: * gcc.dg/pr78185.c: Remove dg-do and replace with with dg-require-effective-target of signal and alarm. * gcc.dg/pr116906-1.c: Likewise. * gcc.dg/pr116906-1.c: Likewise. * gcc.dg/vect/pr101145inf.c: Use effective-target alarm. * gcc.dg/vect/pr101145inf_1.c: Likewise. * lib/target-supports.exp(check_effective_target_alarm): New. gcc/ChangeLog: * doc/sourcebuild.texi (Effective-Target Keywords): Document 'alarm'. Signed-off-by: Torbjörn SVENSSON <torbjorn.svens...@foss.st.com> --- gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi | 3 +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr116906-1.c | 3 ++- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr116906-2.c | 3 ++- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr78185.c | 3 ++- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr101145inf.c | 1 + gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr101145inf_1.c | 1 + gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++ 7 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi b/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi index b5c1b23e527..98ede70f23c 100644 --- a/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi +++ b/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi @@ -2808,6 +2808,9 @@ both scalar and vector modes. @subsubsection Environment attributes @table @code +@item alarm +Target supports @code{alarm}. + @item c The language for the compiler under test is C. diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr116906-1.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr116906-1.c index 27b1fdae02b..7187507a60d 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr116906-1.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr116906-1.c @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@ -/* { dg-do run { target *-*-linux* *-*-gnu* *-*-uclinux* } } */ +/* { dg-require-effective-target alarm } */ +/* { dg-require-effective-target signal } */ /* { dg-options "-O2" } */ #include <stdint.h> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr116906-2.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr116906-2.c index 3478771678c..41a352bf837 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr116906-2.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr116906-2.c @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@ -/* { dg-do run { target *-*-linux* *-*-gnu* *-*-uclinux* } } */ +/* { dg-require-effective-target alarm } */ +/* { dg-require-effective-target signal } */ /* { dg-options "-O2 -fno-tree-ch" } */ #include <unistd.h> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr78185.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr78185.c index d7781b2080f..ada8b1b9f90 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr78185.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr78185.c @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@ -/* { dg-do run { target *-*-linux* *-*-gnu* *-*-uclinux* } } */ +/* { dg-require-effective-target alarm } */ +/* { dg-require-effective-target signal } */ /* { dg-options "-O" } */ #include <unistd.h> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr101145inf.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr101145inf.c index aa598875aa5..70aea94b6e0 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr101145inf.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr101145inf.c @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ +/* { dg-require-effective-target alarm } */ /* { dg-require-effective-target signal } */ /* { dg-additional-options "-O3" } */ #include <limits.h> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr101145inf_1.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr101145inf_1.c index 0465788c3cc..fe008284e1d 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr101145inf_1.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr101145inf_1.c @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ +/* { dg-require-effective-target alarm } */ /* { dg-require-effective-target signal } */ /* { dg-additional-options "-O3" } */ #include <limits.h> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp index 939ef3a4119..93795a7e27f 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp @@ -14255,3 +14255,26 @@ proc add_options_for_nvptx_alloca_ptx { flags } { return $flags } + +# Return true if alarm is supported on the target. + +proc check_effective_target_alarm { } {Maybe A small optimization is return false here if signal is not supported. That is: if ![check_effective_target_signal] { return 0 }
Sure, I'll add that. Is it okay with this change? Or should I send a v2 with this? Kind regards, Torbjörn
Thanks, Andrew+ return [check_no_compiler_messages alarm executable { + #include <signal.h> + #include <stdlib.h> + #include <unistd.h> + void do_exit(int i) { exit (0); } + int main (void) { + struct sigaction s; + sigemptyset (&s.sa_mask); + s.sa_handler = exit; + s.sa_flags = 0; + sigaction (SIGALRM, &s, NULL); + alarm (1); + + /* Infinite loop to simulate work... */ + while (1); + abort (); + } + }] +} -- 2.25.1
