Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org> writes: > On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 12:11, Andrea Corallo <andrea.cora...@arm.com> wrote: >> >> Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org> writes: >> >> [...] >> >> >> I think you need to add -mfloat-abi=hard to the dg-additional-options >> >> otherwise vld1_lane_bf16_1.c >> >> fails on targets with a soft float-abi default (eg arm-linux-gnueabi). >> >> >> >> See bf16_vldn_1.c. >> > >> > Actually that's not sufficient because in turn we get: >> > /sysroot-arm-none-linux-gnueabi/usr/include/gnu/stubs.h:10:11: fatal >> > error: gnu/stubs-hard.h: No such file or directory >> > >> > So you should check that -mfloat-abi=hard is supported. >> > >> > Ditto for the vst tests. >> >> Hi Christophe, >> >> this patch should implement your suggestions. >> >> On my arm-none-linux-gnueabi setup the tests were already skipped >> as unsupported so if you could test and confirm this fixes the >> issue you see would be great. > > Do you know why they are unsupported in your setup?
We probably have a different GCC configuration. Could you share how it's configured your? >> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp >> b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp >> index 15f0649f8ae..2ab7e39756d 100644 >> --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp >> @@ -5213,6 +5213,10 @@ proc >> check_effective_target_arm_v8_2a_bf16_neon_ok_nocache { } { >> return 0; >> } >> >> + if { ! [check_effective_target_arm_hard_ok] } { >> + return 0; >> + } >> + >> foreach flags {"" "-mfloat-abi=hard -mfpu=neon-fp-armv8" >> "-mfloat-abi=softfp -mfpu=neon-fp-armv8" } { >> if { [check_no_compiler_messages_nocache arm_v8_2a_bf16_neon_ok >> object { >> #include <arm_neon.h> > > This seems strange since you would now exit early if > check_effective_target_arm_hard_ok is false, so you'll never need the > -mfloat-abi=softfp version of the flags. So IIUC your suggestion would be to test with higher priority softfp and in case we decide to go for hardfp make sure check_effective_target_arm_hard_ok is satisfied. Am I correct? > BTW in general, I think softfp is tried before hard in the other > similar effective targets, any reason the order is different here? No idea. Thanks Andrea