On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Sandra Loosemore <san...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > 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?
I think the various torture flags were never consistent. I simply avoided putting even more load on the various combinations tested (we should remove some of them, like the -finline-functions and -funroll-loops cases which add little or nothing today). But yes, that's separate things. I'm fine with a patch to unify the various torture flag list into one common one and a later patch trimming it down somewhat. Thanks, Richard. > -Sandra > > >
