On 4 September 2015 at 14:13, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 4:47 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 4:27 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 4:18 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Christophe Lyon >>>> <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote: >>>>> On 3 September 2015 at 13:31, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Christophe Lyon >>>>>> <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote: >>>>>>> On 1 September 2015 at 16:04, Christophe Lyon >>>>>>> <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 25 August 2015 at 17:31, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2015, at 1:14 AM, Christophe Lyon >>>>>>>>> <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Some subsets of the tests override ALWAYS_CXXFLAGS or >>>>>>>>>> TEST_ALWAYS_FLAGS and perform effective_target support tests using >>>>>>>>>> these modified flags. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This patch adds a new function 'clear_effective_target_cache', which >>>>>>>>>> is called at the end of every .exp file which overrides >>>>>>>>>> ALWAYS_CXXFLAGS or TEST_ALWAYS_FLAGS. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So, a simple English directive somewhere that says, if one changes >>>>>>>>> ALWAYS_CXXFLAGS or TEST_ALWAYS_FLAGS then they should do a >>>>>>>>> clear_effective_target_cache at the end as the target cache can make >>>>>>>>> decisions based upon the flags, and those decisions need to be redone >>>>>>>>> when the flags change would be nice. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I do wonder, do we need to reexamine when setting the flags? I’m >>>>>>>>> thinking of a sequence like: non-thumb default, is_thumb, set flags >>>>>>>>> (thumb), is_thumb. Anyway, safe to punt this until someone discovers >>>>>>>>> it or is reasonable sure it happens. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Anyway, all looks good. Ok. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here is what I have committed (r227372). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hmmm, in fact this was r227401. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It caused: >>>>>> >>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(arm_neon_ok,value)": no such element in >>>>>> array >>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(arm_neon_ok,value)": no such element in >>>>>> array >>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(arm_neon_ok,value)": no such element in >>>>>> array >>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(dfp,value)": no such element in array >>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(fsanitize_address,value)": no such element >>>>>> in array >>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(ia32,value)": no such element in array >>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(ia32,value)": no such element in array >>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(ia32,value)": no such element in array >>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(ia32,value)": no such element in array >>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(ia32,value)": no such element in array >>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(ilp32,value)": no such element in array >>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(ilp32,value)": no such element in array >>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(ilp32,value)": no such element in array >>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(ilp32,value)": no such element in array >>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(label_values,value)": no such element in >>>>>> array >>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(lp64,value)": no such element in array >>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(lp64,value)": no such element in array >>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(lp64,value)": no such element in array >>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(ptr32plus,value)": no such element in array >>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(ptr32plus,value)": no such element in array >>>>>> ... >>>>>> >>>>>> on Linux/x86-64: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2015-09/msg00167.html >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'll have a look. >>>>> That's the configuration I used to check before committing, but I am >>>>> going to re-check. >>>> >>>> proc check_cached_effective_target { prop args } { >>>> global et_cache >>>> global et_prop_list >>>> >>>> set target [current_target_name] >>>> if {![info exists et_cache($prop,target)] >>>> || $et_cache($prop,target) != $target} { >>>> verbose "check_cached_effective_target $prop: checking $target" 2 >>>> set et_cache($prop,target) $target >>>> set et_cache($prop,value) [uplevel eval $args] >>>> lappend et_prop_list $prop >>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>> >>>> Aren't you appending $pop to et_prop_list even if it may be already >>>> on the list? >>>> >>>> verbose "check_cached_effective_target cached list is now: >>>> $et_prop_list" 2 >>>> } >>>> set value $et_cache($prop,value) >>>> verbose "check_cached_effective_target $prop: returning $value for >>>> $target" 2 >>>> return $value >>>> } >>>> >>> >>> Like this? >>> >>> -- >>> H.J. >>> --- >>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp >>> b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp >>> index aad45f9..a6c16fe 100644 >>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp >>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp >>> @@ -125,7 +125,9 @@ proc check_cached_effective_target { prop args } { >>> verbose "check_cached_effective_target $prop: checking $target" 2 >>> set et_cache($prop,target) $target >>> set et_cache($prop,value) [uplevel eval $args] >>> - lappend et_prop_list $prop >>> + if {[lsearch $et_prop_list $prop] < 0} { >>> + lappend et_prop_list $prop >>> + } >>> verbose "check_cached_effective_target cached list is now: $et_prop_list" >>> 2 >>> } >>> set value $et_cache($prop,value) >> >> >> It should be >> >> if {![info exists et_prop_list] >> || [lsearch $et_prop_list $prop] < 0} { >> lappend et_prop_list $prop >> } >> > > Here is a patch. OK for trunk? >
It makes sense, indeed, although I still haven't managed to reproduce the issue you reported. > > -- > H.J.
