| Message ID | gkro8hk7sux.fsf@arm.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | arm: [testuiste] fix ivopts.c target test [PR96372] | expand |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Andrea Corallo <Andrea.Corallo@arm.com> > Sent: 19 January 2021 17:13 > To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Cc: Kyrylo Tkachov <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>; Richard Earnshaw > <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>; > christophe.lyon@linaro.org > Subject: [PATCH] arm: [testuiste] fix ivopts.c target test [PR96372] > > Hi all, > > this patch is for PR96372, the fail was introduced by [1] where the > failing check went from using target 'arm_thumb2' to > 'arm_thumb2_ok_no_arm_v8_1_lob'. Unfortunately this is relying on > 'arm_thumb2_ok' that has a different semantic compared to the original > 'arm_thumb2'. > > This patch is introducing then 'arm_thumb2_no_arm_v8_1_lob' relying on > 'arm_thumb2' to restore the intended behavior. > > Okay for trunk? > We usually try to avoid having such negative options (target-no-feature). Dejagnu can use "!" to indicate negation of a target, can you use that? Thanks, Kyrill > Thanks > > Andrea > > [1] > <https://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=gcc.git;h=d2ed233cb940aa3eecc163d > 98b47979dd81dbc0a>
Kyrylo Tkachov <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com> writes: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andrea Corallo <Andrea.Corallo@arm.com> >> Sent: 19 January 2021 17:13 >> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org >> Cc: Kyrylo Tkachov <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>; Richard Earnshaw >> <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>; >> christophe.lyon@linaro.org >> Subject: [PATCH] arm: [testuiste] fix ivopts.c target test [PR96372] >> >> Hi all, >> >> this patch is for PR96372, the fail was introduced by [1] where the >> failing check went from using target 'arm_thumb2' to >> 'arm_thumb2_ok_no_arm_v8_1_lob'. Unfortunately this is relying on >> 'arm_thumb2_ok' that has a different semantic compared to the original >> 'arm_thumb2'. >> >> This patch is introducing then 'arm_thumb2_no_arm_v8_1_lob' relying on >> 'arm_thumb2' to restore the intended behavior. >> >> Okay for trunk? >> > > We usually try to avoid having such negative options (target-no-feature). Dejagnu can use "!" to indicate negation of a target, can you use that? > > Thanks, > Kyrill Hi Kyrill, thanks for reviewing. Not sure I get the suggestion: here 'arm_thumb2_no_arm_v8_1_lob' stands for 'arm_thumb2' positive and 'arm_v8_1_lob' negative. Similarly we already have 'target_arm_thumb2_ok_no_arm_v8_1_lob'. Am I missing something? Andrea
> -----Original Message----- > From: Andrea Corallo <Andrea.Corallo@arm.com> > Sent: 21 January 2021 11:13 > To: Kyrylo Tkachov <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com> > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Richard Earnshaw > <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>; > christophe.lyon@linaro.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: [testuiste] fix ivopts.c target test [PR96372] > > Kyrylo Tkachov <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com> writes: > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Andrea Corallo <Andrea.Corallo@arm.com> > >> Sent: 19 January 2021 17:13 > >> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > >> Cc: Kyrylo Tkachov <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>; Richard Earnshaw > >> <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>; > >> christophe.lyon@linaro.org > >> Subject: [PATCH] arm: [testuiste] fix ivopts.c target test [PR96372] > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> this patch is for PR96372, the fail was introduced by [1] where the > >> failing check went from using target 'arm_thumb2' to > >> 'arm_thumb2_ok_no_arm_v8_1_lob'. Unfortunately this is relying on > >> 'arm_thumb2_ok' that has a different semantic compared to the original > >> 'arm_thumb2'. > >> > >> This patch is introducing then 'arm_thumb2_no_arm_v8_1_lob' relying on > >> 'arm_thumb2' to restore the intended behavior. > >> > >> Okay for trunk? > >> > > > > We usually try to avoid having such negative options (target-no-feature). > Dejagnu can use "!" to indicate negation of a target, can you use that? > > > > Thanks, > > Kyrill > > Hi Kyrill, > > thanks for reviewing. > > Not sure I get the suggestion: here 'arm_thumb2_no_arm_v8_1_lob' stands > for 'arm_thumb2' positive and 'arm_v8_1_lob' negative. Similarly we > already have 'target_arm_thumb2_ok_no_arm_v8_1_lob'. > Ah ok, then it's fine to be consistent. The patch is ok. Thanks, Kyrill > Am I missing something? > > Andrea
Kyrylo Tkachov <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com> writes: [...] > Ah ok, then it's fine to be consistent. > The patch is ok. > Thanks, > Kyrill Thanks, into master as 0568f801eff Andrea
diff --git a/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi b/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi index 3d0873dd074..d5cfe54304d 100644 --- a/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi +++ b/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi @@ -2058,6 +2058,11 @@ ARM Target supports executing the Armv8.1-M Mainline Low Overhead Loop instructions @code{DLS} and @code{LE}. Some multilibs may be incompatible with these options. +@item arm_thumb2_no_arm_v8_1_lob +ARM target where Thumb-2 is used without options but does not support +executing the Armv8.1-M Mainline Low Overhead Loop instructions +@code{DLS} and @code{LE}. + @item arm_thumb2_ok_no_arm_v8_1_lob ARM target generates Thumb-2 code for @code{-mthumb} but does not support executing the Armv8.1-M Mainline Low Overhead Loop diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/ivopts.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/ivopts.c index 2733e66988e..d7d72a59d9c 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/ivopts.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/ivopts.c @@ -11,6 +11,6 @@ tr5 (short array[], int n) } /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "PHI <" 1 "ivopts"} } */ -/* { dg-final { object-size text <= 20 { target { arm_thumb2_ok_no_arm_v8_1_lob } } } } */ +/* { dg-final { object-size text <= 20 { target { arm_thumb2_no_arm_v8_1_lob } } } } */ /* { dg-final { object-size text <= 32 { target { arm_nothumb && { ! arm_iwmmxt_ok } } } } } */ /* { dg-final { object-size text <= 36 { target { arm_nothumb && arm_iwmmxt_ok } } } } */ diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp index 47d4c45e9eb..0d351c8fbad 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp @@ -10658,7 +10658,20 @@ proc check_effective_target_arm_v8_1_lob_ok { } { } } -# Return 1 is this is an ARM target where -mthumb causes Thumb-2 to be +# Return 1 if this is an ARM target where Thumb-2 is used without +# options added by the test and the target does not support executing +# the Armv8.1-M Mainline Low Overhead Loop, 0 otherwise. The test is +# valid for ARM. + +proc check_effective_target_arm_thumb2_no_arm_v8_1_lob { } { + if { [check_effective_target_arm_thumb2] + && ![check_effective_target_arm_v8_1_lob_ok] } { + return 1 + } + return 0 +} + +# Return 1 if this is an ARM target where -mthumb causes Thumb-2 to be # used and the target does not support executing the Armv8.1-M # Mainline Low Overhead Loop, 0 otherwise. The test is valid for ARM.
Hi all, this patch is for PR96372, the fail was introduced by [1] where the failing check went from using target 'arm_thumb2' to 'arm_thumb2_ok_no_arm_v8_1_lob'. Unfortunately this is relying on 'arm_thumb2_ok' that has a different semantic compared to the original 'arm_thumb2'. This patch is introducing then 'arm_thumb2_no_arm_v8_1_lob' relying on 'arm_thumb2' to restore the intended behavior. Okay for trunk? Thanks Andrea [1] <https://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=gcc.git;h=d2ed233cb940aa3eecc163d98b47979dd81dbc0a> From 6199695364808c59202dfcb1b29df1e84dab5aa9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Andrea Corallo <andrea.corallo@arm.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 15:34:19 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] arm: [testuiste] fix ivopts.c target test [PR96372] gcc/ 2021-01-15 Andrea Corallo <andrea.corallo@arm.com> PR target/96372 * doc/sourcebuild.texi (arm_thumb2_no_arm_v8_1_lob): Document. gcc/testsuite/ 2021-01-15 Andrea Corallo <andrea.corallo@arm.com> PR target/96372 * lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_arm_thumb2_no_arm_v8_1_lob): Define proc. * gcc.target/arm/ivopts.c: Use target 'arm_thumb2_no_arm_v8_1_lob'. --- gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi | 5 +++++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/ivopts.c | 2 +- gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp | 15 ++++++++++++++- 3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)