[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 <janisjo@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  <janisjo@codesourcery.com>
	    Tom de Vries  <tom@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.

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 <janisjo@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

>> 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

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