Is it okay to backport below patch and r15-7890-gb7f5d911480 to releases/gcc-14?
Kind regards,
Torbjörn
On 2025-03-11 12:06, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
GCC will complain if the -mcpu flag specifies a different architecture
to that specified in -march, but if the floating-point ABI is "soft",
then differences in the floating-point architecture features are
ignored.
However, the arm_libc_fp_abi checks whether we change the FP ABI by
adding -mfloat-abi=hard/softfp to override the defaults. If that
fails it won't add anything.
Unfortunately arm_neon_h_ok wasn't correctly checking whether the libc
check had worked and just assumed that it would always add something
to enable FP. That's insufficient and we need to consider this failure.
We simply mark tests as unsupported in this case.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* lib/target-supports.exp
(check_effective_target_arm_neon_h_ok_nocache): Return zero if
check_effective_target_arm_libc_fp_abi_ok reports failure.
---
gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
index a184ef37ccb..c456f7d2c6f 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
@@ -5167,7 +5167,8 @@ proc add_options_for_arm_libc_fp_abi { flags } {
proc check_effective_target_arm_neon_h_ok_nocache { } {
# none-arm or thumb1 cannot support neon, so there's no point in
# looking further.
- if { [istarget arm*-*-*] } {
+ if { [istarget arm*-*-*]
+ && [check_effective_target_arm_libc_fp_abi_ok]} {
global et_arm_neon_h_flags
set base_flags [add_options_for_arm_libc_fp_abi ""]
foreach flags {"" "-mfpu=auto" "-marm" "-marm -mfpu=auto" \
