On 05/21/2015 03:48 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 21 May 2015 at 07:33, Sandra Loosemore <san...@codesourcery.com> wrote:
ARM testing shares the AArch64 advsimd-intrinsics execution tests. On ARM,
though, the NEON support being tested is optional -- some arches are
compatible with the NEON compilation options but hardware available for
testing might or might not be able to execute those instructions. In
arm-none-eabi testing of a long list of multilibs, I found that this problem
caused some of the multilibs to get stuck for days because every one of
these execution tests was wandering off into the weeds and timing out.
The vect.exp tests already handle this by setting dg-do-what-default to
either "run" or "compile", depending on whether we have target hardware
execution support (arm_neon_hw) for NEON, or only compilation support
(arm_neon_ok). So, I've adapted that logic for advsimd-intrinsics.exp too.
Indeed it makes sense.
It also appeared that the main loop over the test cases was running them all
twice with the torture options -- once using c-torture-execute and once
using gcc-dg-runtest. I deleted the former since it appears to ignore
dg-do-what-default and always try to execute no matter what. My dejagnu-fu
isn't the strongest and this is pretty confusing to me.... am I missing
something here? Otherwise, OK to commit?
As noted by Alan in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg01348.html
the sets of options covered by gcc-dg-runtest and c-torture-execute
are slightly different.
That was the reason I kept both.
We can probably live with no longer testing "-Og -g" as Alan says.
OTOH, are the 2 option sets supposed to be the same, or are there any
plans to make them differ substantially in the future?
Richard, adding "-Og -g" was your change:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-09/msg01367.html
Is it an oversight that the torture option lists in c-torture.exp,
objc-torture.exp, and gcc-dg.exp are not consistent? Maybe we should
have a separate patch to unify them?
-Sandra
