| Message ID | dbc6cd45-9318-4048-45f7-b469ebbef8b7@mentor.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [testsuite] Require effective target weak_undefined for visibility-22.c | expand |
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 02:40:12PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/visibility-22.c > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/visibility-22.c > @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@ > /* PR target/32219 */ > /* { dg-do run } */ > /* { dg-require-visibility "" } */ > +/* { dg-require-effective-target weak_undefined } */ > /* { dg-options "-O2 -fPIC" { target fpic } } */ > /* This test requires support for undefined weak symbols. This support > is not available on hppa*-*-hpux*. The test is skipped rather than Shouldn't then the: /* This test requires support for undefined weak symbols. This support is not available on hppa*-*-hpux*. The test is skipped rather than xfailed to suppress the warning that would otherwise arise. */ /* { dg-skip-if "" { "hppa*-*-hpux*" "*-*-aix*" "*-*-darwin*" } } */ stuff be dropped too? Jakub
On 12/14/2017 02:47 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 02:40:12PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: >> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/visibility-22.c >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/visibility-22.c >> @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@ >> /* PR target/32219 */ >> /* { dg-do run } */ >> /* { dg-require-visibility "" } */ >> +/* { dg-require-effective-target weak_undefined } */ >> /* { dg-options "-O2 -fPIC" { target fpic } } */ >> /* This test requires support for undefined weak symbols. This support >> is not available on hppa*-*-hpux*. The test is skipped rather than > > Shouldn't then the: > /* This test requires support for undefined weak symbols. This support > is not available on hppa*-*-hpux*. The test is skipped rather than > xfailed to suppress the warning that would otherwise arise. */ > /* { dg-skip-if "" { "hppa*-*-hpux*" "*-*-aix*" "*-*-darwin*" } } */ > stuff be dropped too? I don't know whether the new effective target test will fail for each of these 3 targets. But the warning mentioned for hppa*-*-hpux* will make the effective target test fail, so I think that one can be removed. Thanks, - Tom
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 03:09:02PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: > On 12/14/2017 02:47 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 02:40:12PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: > > > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/visibility-22.c > > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/visibility-22.c > > > @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@ > > > /* PR target/32219 */ > > > /* { dg-do run } */ > > > /* { dg-require-visibility "" } */ > > > +/* { dg-require-effective-target weak_undefined } */ > > > /* { dg-options "-O2 -fPIC" { target fpic } } */ > > > /* This test requires support for undefined weak symbols. This support > > > is not available on hppa*-*-hpux*. The test is skipped rather than > > > > Shouldn't then the: > > /* This test requires support for undefined weak symbols. This support > > is not available on hppa*-*-hpux*. The test is skipped rather than > > xfailed to suppress the warning that would otherwise arise. */ > > /* { dg-skip-if "" { "hppa*-*-hpux*" "*-*-aix*" "*-*-darwin*" } } */ > > stuff be dropped too? > > I don't know whether the new effective target test will fail for each of > these 3 targets. But the warning mentioned for hppa*-*-hpux* will make the > effective target test fail, so I think that one can be removed. Or you can remove all 3, and if unsure, just add those to the weak_undefined effective target (return 0 for them). And ask target maintainers to verify and perhaps remove. Jakub
Hi Tom, > this patch introduces an effective target weak_undefined, and uses it in > test-case visibility-22.c. > > I've tested this on trunk for x86_64, and the test still runs and passes. > > I've tested this on an internal branch for the gcn target, where it makes > the test unsupported (instead of timing out due to random code execution). > > OK for trunk? I like the idea, thanks for doing this. > Require effective target weak_undefined for visibility-22.c > > 2017-12-14 Tom de Vries <tom@codesourcery.com> > > * lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_weak_undefined): New > proc. > * gcc.dg/visibility-22.c: Require effective target weak_undefined. Ok with documentation added to sourcebuild.texi and the dg-skip-if removed. If need be, the proc can still be refined. Rainer
Hi Jakub, > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 03:09:02PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: >> On 12/14/2017 02:47 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 02:40:12PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: >> > > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/visibility-22.c >> > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/visibility-22.c >> > > @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@ >> > > /* PR target/32219 */ >> > > /* { dg-do run } */ >> > > /* { dg-require-visibility "" } */ >> > > +/* { dg-require-effective-target weak_undefined } */ >> > > /* { dg-options "-O2 -fPIC" { target fpic } } */ >> > > /* This test requires support for undefined weak symbols. This support >> > > is not available on hppa*-*-hpux*. The test is skipped rather than >> > >> > Shouldn't then the: >> > /* This test requires support for undefined weak symbols. This support >> > is not available on hppa*-*-hpux*. The test is skipped rather than >> > xfailed to suppress the warning that would otherwise arise. */ >> > /* { dg-skip-if "" { "hppa*-*-hpux*" "*-*-aix*" "*-*-darwin*" } } */ >> > stuff be dropped too? >> >> I don't know whether the new effective target test will fail for each of >> these 3 targets. But the warning mentioned for hppa*-*-hpux* will make the >> effective target test fail, so I think that one can be removed. > > Or you can remove all 3, and if unsure, just add those to the weak_undefined > effective target (return 0 for them). And ask target maintainers to verify > and perhaps remove. I'd do it the other way round: remove dg-skip-if completely and ping the target maintainers to check (and eventually improve) the proc. Otherwise those (probably unnecessary) special cases tend to stay around forever ;-) Rainer
On 12/14/2017 03:18 PM, Rainer Orth wrote: > Hi Jakub, > >> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 03:09:02PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: >>> On 12/14/2017 02:47 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 02:40:12PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: >>>>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/visibility-22.c >>>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/visibility-22.c >>>>> @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@ >>>>> /* PR target/32219 */ >>>>> /* { dg-do run } */ >>>>> /* { dg-require-visibility "" } */ >>>>> +/* { dg-require-effective-target weak_undefined } */ >>>>> /* { dg-options "-O2 -fPIC" { target fpic } } */ >>>>> /* This test requires support for undefined weak symbols. This support >>>>> is not available on hppa*-*-hpux*. The test is skipped rather than >>>> Shouldn't then the: >>>> /* This test requires support for undefined weak symbols. This support >>>> is not available on hppa*-*-hpux*. The test is skipped rather than >>>> xfailed to suppress the warning that would otherwise arise. */ >>>> /* { dg-skip-if "" { "hppa*-*-hpux*" "*-*-aix*" "*-*-darwin*" } } */ >>>> stuff be dropped too? >>> I don't know whether the new effective target test will fail for each of >>> these 3 targets. But the warning mentioned for hppa*-*-hpux* will make the >>> effective target test fail, so I think that one can be removed. >> Or you can remove all 3, and if unsure, just add those to the weak_undefined >> effective target (return 0 for them). And ask target maintainers to verify >> and perhaps remove. > I'd do it the other way round: remove dg-skip-if completely and ping the > target maintainers to check (and eventually improve) the proc. Hi, I've committed patch below which removes this dg-skip-if from visibility-22.c and replaces it with a test for a new effective target weak_undefined: ... /* { dg-skip-if "" { "hppa*-*-hpux*" "*-*-aix*" "*-*-darwin*" } } */ ... Could you please verify that the test for effective target weak_undefined indeed fails for these targets? Thanks, - Tom Require effective target weak_undefined for visibility-22.c 2017-12-14 Tom de Vries <tom@codesourcery.com> * lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_weak_undefined): New proc. * gcc.dg/visibility-22.c: Require effective target weak_undefined. * doc/sourcebuild.texi (Effective-Target Keywords, Other attributes): Add item for weak_undefined. --- gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi | 3 +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/visibility-22.c | 5 +---- gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp | 9 +++++++++ 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi b/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi index 60b6b77..04e18df 100644 --- a/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi +++ b/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi @@ -2238,6 +2238,9 @@ Target supports @code{wchar_t} that is compatible with @code{char32_t}. @item comdat_group Target uses comdat groups. +@item weak_undefined +Target supports weak undefined symbols. + @item word_mode_no_slow_unalign Target does not have slow unaligned access when doing word size accesses. @end table diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/visibility-22.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/visibility-22.c index 5e8cdad..e2b78d1 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/visibility-22.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/visibility-22.c @@ -1,11 +1,8 @@ /* PR target/32219 */ /* { dg-do run } */ /* { dg-require-visibility "" } */ +/* { dg-require-effective-target weak_undefined } */ /* { dg-options "-O2 -fPIC" { target fpic } } */ -/* This test requires support for undefined weak symbols. This support - is not available on hppa*-*-hpux*. The test is skipped rather than - xfailed to suppress the warning that would otherwise arise. */ -/* { dg-skip-if "" { "hppa*-*-hpux*" "*-*-aix*" "*-*-darwin*" } } */ extern void foo () __attribute__((weak,visibility("hidden"))); int diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp index ff8c805..114c1f1 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp @@ -328,6 +328,15 @@ proc check_weak_available { } { } } +# return 1 if weak undefined symbols are supported. + +proc check_effective_target_weak_undefined { } { + return [check_runtime weak_undefined { + extern void foo () __attribute__((weak)); + int main (void) { if (foo) return 1; return 0; } + } ""] +} + ############################### # proc check_weak_override_available { } ###############################
Require effective target weak_undefined for visibility-22.c 2017-12-14 Tom de Vries <tom@codesourcery.com> * lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_weak_undefined): New proc. * gcc.dg/visibility-22.c: Require effective target weak_undefined. --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/visibility-22.c | 1 + gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp | 9 +++++++++ 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+) diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/visibility-22.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/visibility-22.c index 52f59be..49a95ce 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/visibility-22.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/visibility-22.c @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@ /* PR target/32219 */ /* { dg-do run } */ /* { dg-require-visibility "" } */ +/* { dg-require-effective-target weak_undefined } */ /* { dg-options "-O2 -fPIC" { target fpic } } */ /* This test requires support for undefined weak symbols. This support is not available on hppa*-*-hpux*. The test is skipped rather than diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp index 9750b7a..227d8f6 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp @@ -328,6 +328,15 @@ proc check_weak_available { } { } } +# return 1 if weak undefined symbols are supported. + +proc check_effective_target_weak_undefined { } { + return [check_runtime weak_undefined { + extern void foo () __attribute__((weak)); + int main(void) { if (foo) return 1; return 0; } + } ""] +} + ############################### # proc check_weak_override_available { } ###############################