Re: [testsuite] don't use lto plugin if it doesn't work

2012-07-02 Thread Mike Stump
On Jul 2, 2012, at 4:06 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 29, 2012, Mike Stump wrote: >> First, let get to the heart of the matter. That is the behavior of >> compiler. > > That's a distraction in the context of a patch to improve a feature > that's already present in the testsuite machinery,

Re: [testsuite] don't use lto plugin if it doesn't work

2012-07-02 Thread Richard Guenther
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 29, 2012, Mike Stump wrote: > >> First, let get to the heart of the matter. That is the behavior of >> compiler. > > That's a distraction in the context of a patch to improve a feature > that's already present in the testsuite machi

Re: [testsuite] don't use lto plugin if it doesn't work

2012-07-02 Thread Alexandre Oliva
On Jun 29, 2012, Mike Stump wrote: > First, let get to the heart of the matter. That is the behavior of > compiler. That's a distraction in the context of a patch to improve a feature that's already present in the testsuite machinery, isn't it? I have no objection to discussing this other topi

Re: [testsuite] don't use lto plugin if it doesn't work

2012-06-29 Thread Mike Stump
On Jun 28, 2012, at 3:19 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 28, 2012, Mike Stump wrote: >> The next would be because it would be a speed hit to re-check at >> runtime the qualities of the linker and do something different. > > But then, our testsuite *does* re-check at runtime, but without my >

Re: [testsuite] don't use lto plugin if it doesn't work

2012-06-28 Thread Alexandre Oliva
On Jun 28, 2012, Mike Stump wrote: > On Jun 28, 2012, at 4:39 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> That still doesn't sound right to me: why should the compiler refrain >> from using a perfectly functional linker plugin on the machine where >> it's installed (not where it's built? > See your point bel

Re: [testsuite] don't use lto plugin if it doesn't work

2012-06-28 Thread Richard Guenther
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 07:03:37AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote: >> > Also, this scenario of silently deciding whether or not to use the >> > linker plugin could bring us to different test results for the same >> > command lines.  I don't like tha

Re: [testsuite] don't use lto plugin if it doesn't work

2012-06-28 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 07:03:37AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote: > > Also, this scenario of silently deciding whether or not to use the > > linker plugin could bring us to different test results for the same > > command lines. I don't like that. > > Right, which is why the static configuration of the

Re: [testsuite] don't use lto plugin if it doesn't work

2012-06-28 Thread Mike Stump
On Jun 28, 2012, at 4:39 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 28, 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 04:16:55AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >>> I'd very be surprised if I asked for an i686 native build to package and >>> install elsewhere, and didn't get a plugin just becau

Re: [testsuite] don't use lto plugin if it doesn't work

2012-06-28 Thread Mike Stump
On Jun 28, 2012, at 12:16 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 27, 2012, Mike Stump wrote: >> On Jun 27, 2012, at 2:07 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >>> Why? We don't demand a working plugin. Indeed, we disable the use of >>> the plugin if we find a linker that doesn't support it. We just don't >>

Re: [testsuite] don't use lto plugin if it doesn't work

2012-06-28 Thread Richard Guenther
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 28, 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 04:16:55AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >>> I'd very be surprised if I asked for an i686 native build to package and >>> install elsewhere, and didn't get a plugin just be

Re: [testsuite] don't use lto plugin if it doesn't work

2012-06-28 Thread Alexandre Oliva
On Jun 28, 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 04:16:55AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> I'd very be surprised if I asked for an i686 native build to package and >> install elsewhere, and didn't get a plugin just because the build-time >> linker wouldn't have been able to run t

Re: [testsuite] don't use lto plugin if it doesn't work

2012-06-28 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 04:16:55AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 27, 2012, Mike Stump wrote: > > > On Jun 27, 2012, at 2:07 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> Why? We don't demand a working plugin. Indeed, we disable the use of > >> the plugin if we find a linker that doesn't support it.

Re: [testsuite] don't use lto plugin if it doesn't work

2012-06-28 Thread Alexandre Oliva
On Jun 27, 2012, Mike Stump wrote: > On Jun 27, 2012, at 2:07 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> Why? We don't demand a working plugin. Indeed, we disable the use of >> the plugin if we find a linker that doesn't support it. We just don't >> account for the possibility of finding a linker that supp

Re: [testsuite] don't use lto plugin if it doesn't work

2012-06-27 Thread Mike Stump
On Jun 27, 2012, at 2:07 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > Why? We don't demand a working plugin. Indeed, we disable the use of > the plugin if we find a linker that doesn't support it. We just don't > account for the possibility of finding a linker that supports plugins, > but that doesn't support t

Re: [testsuite] don't use lto plugin if it doesn't work

2012-06-27 Thread Alexandre Oliva
[Adding gcc@] On Jun 26, 2012, "H.J. Lu" wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Mike Stump wrote: >> On Jun 26, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >>> I test i686-linux-gnu in a presumably unusual setting >> >> I like the setup and testing... >> >>> This worked fine for regression te