[{"id":3680871,"web_url":"http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/comment/3680871/","msgid":"","list_archive_url":null,"date":"2026-04-22T18:38:42","subject":"[SUMMARY] Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] testsuite: arm: Remove arm32 check and\n fix arm_v8_neon_ok flags","submitter":{"id":92734,"url":"http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/api/people/92734/","name":"Christophe Lyon via Sourceware Forge","email":"forge-bot+clyon@forge-stage.sourceware.org"},"content":"This is a summary of discussions relative to the merge request created by Christophe Lyon (clyon) titled\ntestsuite: arm: Remove arm32 check and fix arm_v8_neon_ok flags\nsince its creation.\n\nDescription: These two patches improve test coverage for instance for the toolchain is configured with a default -march or -mcpu which supports Thumb-1 only.\n\n\n\nThe full and up to date discussion can be found at https://forge.sourceware.org/gcc/gcc-TEST/pulls/65\n\nThe merge request has been closed without being merged directly on the forge repository.\n\nOn 2025-08-28 10:01:10+00:00, Richard Earnshaw (rearnsha) commented on the code:\n\n\n> +++ gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp\n> @@ -5935,4 +5926,0 @@\n> -\t\tfoo ()\n> -\t\t{\n> -\t\t __asm__ volatile (\"vrintn.f32 q0, q0\");\n> -\t\t}\nI think a better change would be to rework the iteration list above, to be:\n\n\"\" \n\"-mfloat-abi=softfp\"\n\"-mcpu=unset -march=armv8-a+simd -mfpu=auto\"\n\"-mcpu=unset -march=armv8-a+simd -mfpu=auto -mfloat-abi=softfp\"\n\nThe idea being that we want to preserve the base architecture flags for the testsuite run if possible, and only override the architecture if that is necessary to get the test to work.\n\nWith that change we don't need to add \"-mcpu=unset -march=armv8-a\" to every variant of the test.\n> +++ gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp\n> @@ -5935,4 +5926,0 @@\n> -\t\tfoo ()\n> -\t\t{\n> -\t\t __asm__ volatile (\"vrintn.f32 q0, q0\");\n> -\t\t}\nI think the UI is confusing, the patch only removes\n\n`if { [check_effective_target_arm32] } \n`\nand re-indents the loop accordingl, like v1 of the patch (https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-July/688619.html)\nI thought you were OK with that (https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-August/692214.html) and v2 just adds\n\n```\nif { ![istarget arm*-*-*] } {\n return 0\n}\n\n```\nat the beginning of `check_effective_target_arm_neon_ok_nocache` as you suggested.\n\nI think several other effective-targets would need the change you suggest here, so that could be for another patch?\n\n> +++ gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp\n> @@ -5935,4 +5926,0 @@\n> -\t\tfoo ()\n> -\t\t{\n> -\t\t __asm__ volatile (\"vrintn.f32 q0, q0\");\n> -\t\t}\n@clyon wrote in https://forge.sourceware.org/gcc/gcc-TEST/pulls/65/files#issuecomment-1939:\n\n> I think the UI is confusing, the patch only removes\n\nI was referring to the hunk where you add \n `set et_arm_v8_neon_flags \"$flags -mcpu=unset -march=armv8-a\"`\n\nBut perhaps I missed something in my previous reply since I could only see the limited context of the diff itself :) \n> +++ gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp\n> @@ -5935,4 +5926,0 @@\n> -\t\tfoo ()\n> -\t\t{\n> -\t\t __asm__ volatile (\"vrintn.f32 q0, q0\");\n> -\t\t}\non the other hand, this is an incremental improvement on what we have now, so it should be ok to do this as a follow-up\n> +++ gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp\n> @@ -5935,4 +5926,0 @@\n> -\t\tfoo ()\n> -\t\t{\n> -\t\t __asm__ volatile (\"vrintn.f32 q0, q0\");\n> -\t\t}\n@rearnsha wrote in https://forge.sourceware.org/gcc/gcc-TEST/pulls/65#issuecomment-1944:\n\n> @clyon wrote in #65/files (comment):\n> \n> > I think the UI is confusing, the patch only removes\n> \n> I was referring to the hunk where you add `set et_arm_v8_neon_flags \"$flags -mcpu=unset -march=armv8-a\"`\n> \n> But perhaps I missed something in my previous reply since I could only see the limited context of the diff itself :)\n\nHmm OK, sorry the UI confused me actually :-) I thought your comment applied to patch 1/2, but it's about patch 2/2.\nIn patch 2/2 I am just using the usual practice we have in several places (eg. r15-6163-ga2006457c67688)\n\n\nOn 2026-04-08 14:07:57+00:00, Christophe Lyon (clyon) wrote:\n\nMerged as r16-3492-g3cb6c01d2a9ab0 and r16-3493-g32d3f5744a1f26\n\n\nOn 2026-04-22 18:37:20+00:00, Lichenor Forgejo Bot (forge-bot) wrote:\n\n\nVersion 1 of this pull request has been stored. It includes the following commits:\n- testsuite: arm: remove arm32 check from a few effective-targets - c7facfdb36a0746a926351f9006f65c872082658\n- testsuite: arm: factorize arm_v8_neon_ok flags - 5056f8c54e7c072933757854e04920323ac6f2f6\n\n\n\nOn 2026-04-22 18:38:13+00:00, Lichenor Forgejo Bot (forge-bot) wrote:\n\nSent patch series version 1 containing 2 patches to gcc-patches mailing list .\n[Cover letter](https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/bmm.hhuosaw9os.gcc.gcc-TEST.clyon.65.1.0@forge-stage.sourceware.org)","headers":{"Return-Path":"","X-Original-To":["incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org","gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org"],"Delivered-To":["patchwork-incoming@legolas.ozlabs.org","gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org"],"Authentication-Results":["legolas.ozlabs.org;\n spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=gcc.gnu.org\n (client-ip=38.145.34.32; helo=vm01.sourceware.org;\n envelope-from=gcc-patches-bounces~incoming=patchwork.ozlabs.org@gcc.gnu.org;\n receiver=patchwork.ozlabs.org)","sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none)\n header.from=forge-stage.sourceware.org","sourceware.org;\n spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=forge-stage.sourceware.org","server2.sourceware.org;\n arc=none smtp.remote-ip=38.145.34.39"],"Received":["from vm01.sourceware.org (vm01.sourceware.org [38.145.34.32])\n\t(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)\n\t key-exchange x25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1) server-digest SHA384)\n\t(No client certificate requested)\n\tby legolas.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4g17vn0f7gz1yGs\n\tfor ; Thu, 23 Apr 2026 05:05:09 +1000 (AEST)","from vm01.sourceware.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])\n\tby sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B9E2402A561\n\tfor ; Wed, 22 Apr 2026 19:05:07 +0000 (GMT)","from forge-stage.sourceware.org (vm08.sourceware.org [38.145.34.39])\n by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8406242C3E8D\n for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2026 18:38:42 +0000 (GMT)","from forge-stage.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1])\n (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)\n key-exchange x25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256)\n (No client certificate requested)\n by forge-stage.sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E127434F4\n for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2026 18:38:42 +0000 (UTC)"],"DKIM-Filter":["OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 1B9E2402A561","OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 8406242C3E8D"],"DMARC-Filter":"OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 8406242C3E8D","ARC-Filter":"OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 8406242C3E8D","ARC-Seal":"i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1776883122; cv=none;\n b=h6XAq4FTRRlxkHLG6hHxKAUFiVcaBTv3jQazzro4cLYD91CiPaiZkARucIJnLr3Sd1AsWxp4ajGesj+BNzeCsBigHF2voJTiiUasp/OnIEl/DcJHuhinnphX1Wr2SeNLQ3SKaL39EwLMx742+9r/7Gsa7x2vCJZmQ3+EEqqK9nM=","ARC-Message-Signature":"i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key;\n t=1776883122; c=relaxed/simple;\n bh=+5Lq/0aubbYyGwJRPsfTJ64ywdNavH+6XaRkFRwka98=;\n h=Subject:From:To:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Date;\n b=nO/vTgxvSHXIfGZ8HTo8hYDROzXOB/kdPIIDBHik1ZzGMtEQgwUXrueKneqBUxBr38z6HcNiAfsfGFOCPDiCOFVz3+IbcM2KwnlfKysnvNpX/NDppLq+ywphS3vjHn7BHc7c0g+KZjsj5qMqUPBhAvcQhIwq9rOjgwep03qYdhs=","ARC-Authentication-Results":"i=1; server2.sourceware.org","Subject":"[SUMMARY] Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] testsuite: arm: Remove arm32 check and\n fix arm_v8_neon_ok flags","From":"Christophe Lyon via Sourceware Forge\n ","To":"gcc-patches mailing list ","In-Reply-To":"\n ","Message-ID":"\n ","X-Mailer":"batrachomyomachia","X-Pull-Request-Organization":"gcc","X-Pull-Request-Repository":"gcc-TEST","X-Pull-Request":"https://forge.sourceware.org/gcc/gcc-TEST/pulls/65","Content-Type":"text/plain; charset=\"utf-8\"","Content-Transfer-Encoding":"quoted-printable","MIME-Version":"1.0","Date":"Wed, 22 Apr 2026 18:38:42 +0000 (UTC)","X-BeenThere":"gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org","X-Mailman-Version":"2.1.30","Precedence":"list","List-Id":"Gcc-patches mailing list ","List-Unsubscribe":",\n ","List-Archive":"","List-Post":"","List-Help":"","List-Subscribe":",\n ","Errors-To":"gcc-patches-bounces~incoming=patchwork.ozlabs.org@gcc.gnu.org"}}]