Re: [testsuite] ARM ivopts tests: skip for no thumb support
On 06/24/2011 12:07 AM, Janis Johnson wrote:
On 06/23/2011 02:56 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
On 23 June 2011 22:36, Janis Johnson jani...@codesourcery.com wrote:
Tests gcc.target/arm/ivopts*.c add -mthumb but fail on targets without
thumb support; skip those targets. The tests save temporary files and
need to remove them at the end, easily done with cleanup-saved-temps.
Test ivopts-6.c is the only one of the set that does not require thumb2
support in the check for object-size, and it fails for -march=iwmmxt
and iwmmxt2; the check should probably be used on that test as well,
although I haven't included it here.
I'm not sure I understand the change for ivopts-6.c :
It's skipping if there is no Thumb support by default but the test
assumes the test will run with -marm on the command line ?
Ramana
Oops, I got carried away and didn't notice that it uses -marm rather
than -mthumb. I'll take another look at that one.
Janis
How about this patch? I removed all -mthumb/-marm option settings, and instead
focused on trying to guard the object-size tests properly.
I introduced 2 new arm-related effective targets to accomplish this.
- arm_thumb2: Tests if we're compiling for thumb2.
- arm_nothumb: Tests if we're not compiling for any thumb.
I don't know how to get the same effect with the existing arm-related effective
targets.
Thanks,
- Tom
2011-06-24 Janis Johnson jani...@codesourcery.com
Tom de Vries t...@codesourcery.com
* lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_arm_nothumb)
(check_effective_target_arm_thumb2): New effective targets.
* gcc.target/arm/ivopts.c: Remove -mthumb/-marm. Guard object-size
properly. Clean up temporary files.
* gcc.target/arm/ivopts-2.c: Likewise.
* gcc.target/arm/ivopts-3.c: Likewise.
* gcc.target/arm/ivopts-4.c: Likewise.
* gcc.target/arm/ivopts-5.c: Likewise.
* gcc.target/arm/ivopts-6.c: Remove duplicate of ivopts.c.
diff -u gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/ivopts-3.c (revision 0) gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/ivopts-3.c (revision 0)
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/ivopts-3.c (revision 0)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/ivopts-3.c (revision 0)
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
/* { dg-do assemble } */
-/* { dg-options -Os -mthumb -fdump-tree-ivopts -save-temps } */
+/* { dg-options -Os -fdump-tree-ivopts -save-temps } */
extern unsigned int foo2 (short*) __attribute__((pure));
@@ -19,2 +19,3 @@
-/* { dg-final { object-size text = 30 { target arm_thumb2_ok } } } */
+/* { dg-final { object-size text = 30 { target arm_thumb2 } } } */
/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump ivopts } } */
+/* { dg-final { cleanup-saved-temps ivopts } } */
diff -u gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/ivopts-4.c (revision 0) gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/ivopts-4.c (revision 0)
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/ivopts-4.c (revision 0)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/ivopts-4.c (revision 0)
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
/* { dg-do assemble } */
-/* { dg-options -mthumb -Os -fdump-tree-ivopts -save-temps } */
+/* { dg-options -Os -fdump-tree-ivopts -save-temps } */
extern unsigned int foo (int*) __attribute__((pure));
@@ -20,2 +20,3 @@
-/* { dg-final { object-size text = 36 { target arm_thumb2_ok } } } */
+/* { dg-final { object-size text = 36 { target arm_thumb2 } } } */
/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump ivopts } } */
+/* { dg-final { cleanup-saved-temps ivopts } } */
diff -u gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/ivopts-5.c (revision 0) gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/ivopts-5.c (revision 0)
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/ivopts-5.c (revision 0)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/ivopts-5.c (revision 0)
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
/* { dg-do assemble } */
-/* { dg-options -Os -mthumb -fdump-tree-ivopts -save-temps } */
+/* { dg-options -Os -fdump-tree-ivopts -save-temps } */
extern unsigned int foo (int*) __attribute__((pure));
@@ -19,2 +19,3 @@
-/* { dg-final { object-size text = 30 { target arm_thumb2_ok } } } */
+/* { dg-final { object-size text = 30 { target arm_thumb2 } } } */
/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump ivopts } } */
+/* { dg-final { cleanup-saved-temps ivopts } } */
diff -u gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/ivopts-2.c (revision 0) gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/ivopts-2.c (revision 0)
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/ivopts-2.c (revision 0)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/ivopts-2.c (revision 0)
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
/* { dg-do assemble } */
-/* { dg-options -Os -mthumb -fdump-tree-ivopts -save-temps } */
+/* { dg-options -Os -fdump-tree-ivopts -save-temps } */
extern void foo2 (short*);
@@ -17,2 +17,3 @@
-/* { dg-final { object-size text = 26 { target arm_thumb2_ok } } } */
+/* { dg-final { object-size text = 26 { target arm_thumb2 } } } */
/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump ivopts } } */
+/* { dg-final { cleanup-saved-temps ivopts } } */
diff -u gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/ivopts.c (revision 0) gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/ivopts.c (revision 0)
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/ivopts.c (revision 0)
+++
Re: [testsuite] ARM ivopts tests: skip for no thumb support
On 06/24/2011 03:29 AM, Tom de Vries wrote: On 06/24/2011 12:07 AM, Janis Johnson wrote: On 06/23/2011 02:56 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: On 23 June 2011 22:36, Janis Johnson jani...@codesourcery.com wrote: Tests gcc.target/arm/ivopts*.c add -mthumb but fail on targets without thumb support; skip those targets. The tests save temporary files and need to remove them at the end, easily done with cleanup-saved-temps. Test ivopts-6.c is the only one of the set that does not require thumb2 support in the check for object-size, and it fails for -march=iwmmxt and iwmmxt2; the check should probably be used on that test as well, although I haven't included it here. I'm not sure I understand the change for ivopts-6.c : It's skipping if there is no Thumb support by default but the test assumes the test will run with -marm on the command line ? Ramana Oops, I got carried away and didn't notice that it uses -marm rather than -mthumb. I'll take another look at that one. Janis How about this patch? I removed all -mthumb/-marm option settings, and instead focused on trying to guard the object-size tests properly. I introduced 2 new arm-related effective targets to accomplish this. - arm_thumb2: Tests if we're compiling for thumb2. - arm_nothumb: Tests if we're not compiling for any thumb. I don't know how to get the same effect with the existing arm-related effective targets. That looks good to me, and those effective targets will be very useful. Reviewers, is Tom's patch OK? Janis
Re: [testsuite] ARM ivopts tests: skip for no thumb support
I introduced 2 new arm-related effective targets to accomplish this.
- arm_thumb2: Tests if we're compiling for thumb2.
- arm_nothumb: Tests if we're not compiling for any thumb.
I don't know how to get the same effect with the existing arm-related
effective
targets.
That looks good to me, and those effective targets will be very useful.
How is this different from arm_thumb2_ok and !arm_thumb2_ok ?
If l Iook at arm_thumb2 that appears to be identical to what
arm_thumb2_ok does.
proc check_effective_target_arm_thumb2_ok { } {
return [check_no_compiler_messages arm_thumb2_ok assembly {
#if !defined(__thumb2__)
#error FOO
#endif
} -mthumb]
}
+# Return 1 is this is an ARM target where is Thumb-2 used.
+
+proc check_effective_target_arm_thumb2 { } {
+return [check_no_compiler_messages arm_thumb2 assembly {
+ #if !defined(__thumb2__)
+ #error FOO
+ #endif
+} ]
+}
+
Or am I missing something ?
Ramana
Re: [testsuite] ARM ivopts tests: skip for no thumb support
On 06/24/2011 08:03 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
I introduced 2 new arm-related effective targets to accomplish this.
- arm_thumb2: Tests if we're compiling for thumb2.
- arm_nothumb: Tests if we're not compiling for any thumb.
I don't know how to get the same effect with the existing arm-related
effective
targets.
That looks good to me, and those effective targets will be very useful.
How is this different from arm_thumb2_ok and !arm_thumb2_ok ?
If l Iook at arm_thumb2 that appears to be identical to what
arm_thumb2_ok does.
proc check_effective_target_arm_thumb2_ok { } {
return [check_no_compiler_messages arm_thumb2_ok assembly {
#if !defined(__thumb2__)
#error FOO
#endif
} -mthumb]=== HERE
}
+# Return 1 is this is an ARM target where is Thumb-2 used.
+
+proc check_effective_target_arm_thumb2 { } {
+return [check_no_compiler_messages arm_thumb2 assembly {
+ #if !defined(__thumb2__)
+ #error FOO
+ #endif
+} ]
+}
+
Or am I missing something ?
Ramana
arm_thumb_ok and arm_thumb2_ok check to see if the target will be as expected
when compiling with -mthumb, and the tests that use it add -mthumb to the
options. The new ones check to see if the target is thumb with current
multilib options, and it can safely be used for dg-final.
Janis
Janis
Re: [testsuite] ARM ivopts tests: skip for no thumb support
On 23 June 2011 22:36, Janis Johnson jani...@codesourcery.com wrote: Tests gcc.target/arm/ivopts*.c add -mthumb but fail on targets without thumb support; skip those targets. The tests save temporary files and need to remove them at the end, easily done with cleanup-saved-temps. Test ivopts-6.c is the only one of the set that does not require thumb2 support in the check for object-size, and it fails for -march=iwmmxt and iwmmxt2; the check should probably be used on that test as well, although I haven't included it here. I'm not sure I understand the change for ivopts-6.c : It's skipping if there is no Thumb support by default but the test assumes the test will run with -marm on the command line ? Ramana
Re: [testsuite] ARM ivopts tests: skip for no thumb support
On 06/23/2011 02:56 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: On 23 June 2011 22:36, Janis Johnson jani...@codesourcery.com wrote: Tests gcc.target/arm/ivopts*.c add -mthumb but fail on targets without thumb support; skip those targets. The tests save temporary files and need to remove them at the end, easily done with cleanup-saved-temps. Test ivopts-6.c is the only one of the set that does not require thumb2 support in the check for object-size, and it fails for -march=iwmmxt and iwmmxt2; the check should probably be used on that test as well, although I haven't included it here. I'm not sure I understand the change for ivopts-6.c : It's skipping if there is no Thumb support by default but the test assumes the test will run with -marm on the command line ? Ramana Oops, I got carried away and didn't notice that it uses -marm rather than -mthumb. I'll take another look at that one. Janis
