On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 at 15:00, Richard Earnshaw
<richard.earns...@foss.arm.com> wrote:
>
> On 02/03/2021 18:35, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 19:18, Richard Earnshaw
> > <richard.earns...@foss.arm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 02/03/2021 18:14, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >>> On 02/03/2021 18:10, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 17:25, Richard Earnshaw
> >>>> <richard.earns...@foss.arm.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 02/03/2021 16:19, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >>>>>> On 01/03/2021 15:26, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >>>>>>> Ping?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 at 10:01, Christophe Lyon
> >>>>>>> <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ping?
> >>>>>>>> I guess that's obvious enough?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 10:03, Christophe Lyon
> >>>>>>>> <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Depending on how the toolchain is configured or how the testsuite is
> >>>>>>>>> executed, -mthumb may not be compatible. Like for other tests, skip
> >>>>>>>>> pr97969.c in this case.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> For instance arm-linux-gnueabihf and -march=armv5t in RUNTESTFLAGS.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 2021-01-27 Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> gcc/testsuite/
> >>>>>>>>> PR target/97969
> >>>>>>>>> * gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c: Skip if thumb mode is not available.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c
> >>>>>>>>> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c
> >>>>>>>>> index 714a1d1..0b5d07f 100644
> >>>>>>>>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c
> >>>>>>>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c
> >>>>>>>>> @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
> >>>>>>>>> /* { dg-do compile } */
> >>>>>>>>> +/* { dg-skip-if "" { ! { arm_thumb1_ok || arm_thumb2_ok } } } */
> >>>>>>>>> /* { dg-options "-std=c99 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mthumb -w -Os"
> >>>>>>>>> } */
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> typedef a[23];
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm working on a patch to make this sort of change unnecessary (I
> >>>>>> hope).
> >>>>>> Just running some final checks.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> R.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ah, wait. This one already has an explicit -mthumb, so my patch won't
> >>>>> affect this. But why is -mthumb needed for this test anyway? It's just
> >>>>> a compilation test, so why not drop that and we'll generally get better
> >>>>> coverage all round.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> For instance I see the test fail for target arm-none-linux-gnueabihf
> >>>> --with-mode arm --with-cpu cortex-a9 --with-fpu vfp
> >>>> and running the tests with -march=armv5t
> >>>>
> >>>> We get the famous thumb-1 + hard-float ABI not supported.
> >>>>
> >>>> I guess -mthumb is inherited from the bug report?
> >>>>
> >>>> Christophe
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> dropping the -mthumb should fix that though?
> >>>
> >>> In fact, I'd drop -Os as well, it's not needed as -Os is just one of the
> >>> many options that are used to build this test already.
> >>>
> >>> R.
> >>>
> >>
> >> But maybe then we need to change dg-options into dg-add-options.
> >>
> >
> > Not sure to follow: the test is compiled only once, with:
> > -std=c99 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mthumb -w -Os
> > in my logs
> >
>
> I think it's only run the once /because/ the test sets dg-options rather
> than dg-add-options.
>
Hi, sorry for the delay...
I guess you mean dg-additional-options ?
I did try that, to be sure, but the tests in gcc.target/arm are only
compiled once.
Back to the original discussion, if we drop -mthumb, which is required
according to the PR (?), how do we ensure coverage? Sure I'm running
the testsuite with various RUNTESTFLAGS settings, but wouldn't it be
better to test what the PR reports by default?
Thanks
Christophe
.
