| Message ID | 73881b3e-964d-3e8c-28d6-1d1f6884bfc9@arm.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [ARM,gcc-7] Fix regression on soft float targets for armv8_2-fp16-move-2.c | expand |
On 14 December 2017 at 17:05, Sudakshina Das <sudi.das@arm.com> wrote: > Hi > > This patch is a follow up on my previous patch with r255536 that was a > back-port for fixing a wrong code generation > (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-11/msg02209.html). > As pointed out by Christophe Lyon > (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-12/msg00718.html) the test case > started to fail on the new dejagnu for arm-none-linux-gnueabi and > arm-none-eabi. > This patch just removes the dg-add-options from the test case because I > think dg-options has all that is needed anyway. > > Testing: Since I could not reproduce the failure on my machine, Christophe > would it be possible for you to check if this patch fixes the > regression for you? > Manually tested on one of the offending configs, it did the trick. Thanks Christophe > Thanks > Sudi
Hi On 14/12/17 17:37, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On 14 December 2017 at 17:05, Sudakshina Das <sudi.das@arm.com> wrote: >> Hi >> >> This patch is a follow up on my previous patch with r255536 that was a >> back-port for fixing a wrong code generation >> (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-11/msg02209.html). >> As pointed out by Christophe Lyon >> (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-12/msg00718.html) the test case >> started to fail on the new dejagnu for arm-none-linux-gnueabi and >> arm-none-eabi. >> This patch just removes the dg-add-options from the test case because I >> think dg-options has all that is needed anyway. >> >> Testing: Since I could not reproduce the failure on my machine, Christophe >> would it be possible for you to check if this patch fixes the >> regression for you? >> > > Manually tested on one of the offending configs, it did the trick. > Thanks > Thank you so much. I will wait for an OK and commit it! Sudi > Christophe > >> Thanks >> Sudi
On 14/12/17 18:17, Sudi Das wrote: > Hi > > On 14/12/17 17:37, Christophe Lyon wrote: > > On 14 December 2017 at 17:05, Sudakshina Das <sudi.das@arm.com> wrote: > >> Hi > >> > >> This patch is a follow up on my previous patch with r255536 that was a > >> back-port for fixing a wrong code generation > >> (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-11/msg02209.html). > >> As pointed out by Christophe Lyon > >> (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-12/msg00718.html) the test > case > >> started to fail on the new dejagnu for arm-none-linux-gnueabi and > >> arm-none-eabi. > >> This patch just removes the dg-add-options from the test case because I > >> think dg-options has all that is needed anyway. > >> > >> Testing: Since I could not reproduce the failure on my machine, > Christophe > >> would it be possible for you to check if this patch fixes the > >> regression for you? > >> > > > > Manually tested on one of the offending configs, it did the trick. > > Thanks > > > > Thank you so much. I will wait for an OK and commit it! > Thanks Sudi and Christophe. The patch is ok with an appropriate ChangeLog entry. Kyrill > Sudi > > > Christophe > > > >> Thanks > >> Sudi >
Hi On 14/12/17 18:26, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > On 14/12/17 18:17, Sudi Das wrote: >> Hi >> >> On 14/12/17 17:37, Christophe Lyon wrote: >> > On 14 December 2017 at 17:05, Sudakshina Das <sudi.das@arm.com> wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> >> >> This patch is a follow up on my previous patch with r255536 that was a >> >> back-port for fixing a wrong code generation >> >> (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-11/msg02209.html). >> >> As pointed out by Christophe Lyon >> >> (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-12/msg00718.html) the test >> case >> >> started to fail on the new dejagnu for arm-none-linux-gnueabi and >> >> arm-none-eabi. >> >> This patch just removes the dg-add-options from the test case >> because I >> >> think dg-options has all that is needed anyway. >> >> >> >> Testing: Since I could not reproduce the failure on my machine, >> Christophe >> >> would it be possible for you to check if this patch fixes the >> >> regression for you? >> >> >> > >> > Manually tested on one of the offending configs, it did the trick. >> > Thanks >> > >> >> Thank you so much. I will wait for an OK and commit it! >> > > Thanks Sudi and Christophe. > The patch is ok with an appropriate ChangeLog entry. > Thanks Kyrill. I added the ChanngeLog entry. Committed with r255681. Sudi > Kyrill > >> Sudi >> >> > Christophe >> > >> >> Thanks >> >> Sudi >> >
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/armv8_2-fp16-move-2.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/armv8_2-fp16-move-2.c index ac7d4e3f2a9fb1d70a9ce95062dc6db4a69272ff..09adddfd57ca13e831c276aef25621e7340bcfff 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/armv8_2-fp16-move-2.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/armv8_2-fp16-move-2.c @@ -1,7 +1,6 @@ /* { dg-do compile } */ /* { dg-require-effective-target arm_v8_2a_fp16_scalar_ok } */ /* { dg-options "-O2 -mfpu=fp-armv8 -march=armv8.2-a+fp16 -marm -mfloat-abi=hard" } */ -/* { dg-add-options arm_v8_2a_fp16_scalar } */ __fp16 test_select (__fp16 a, __fp16 b, __fp16 c)