Re: [PATCH] arm: [testcase] Better narrow some bfloat16 testcase
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 15:30, Andrea Corallo wrote:
>
> Christophe Lyon writes:
>
> > On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 12:11, Andrea Corallo wrote:
> >>
> >> Christophe Lyon 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?
>
Sure, for instance:
--target=arm-none-linux-gnueabi --with-float=soft --with-mode=arm
--with-cpu=cortex-a9
> >> 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
> >
> > 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?
>
ISTM that other tests that need hardfp check if it's supported in the
test, not in other effective targets.
For instance mve/intrinsics/mve_fpu1.c
I can see that quite a few tests that use -mfloat-abi=hard do not
check whether it's supported. Those I checked do not include
arm_neon.h and thus do not end up with the gnu/stubs-hard.h error
above.
> > 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
Re: [PATCH] arm: [testcase] Better narrow some bfloat16 testcase
Christophe Lyon writes:
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 12:11, Andrea Corallo wrote:
>>
>> Christophe Lyon 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
>
> 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
Re: [PATCH] arm: [testcase] Better narrow some bfloat16 testcase
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 12:11, Andrea Corallo wrote:
>
> Christophe Lyon 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?
> 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
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.
BTW in general, I think softfp is tried before hard in the other
similar effective targets, any reason the order is different here?
Christophe
>
> Thanks!
>
> Andrea
>
