On 06/12/2017 02:28 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
Hi Tom,
On 9 June 2017 at 17:25, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Jun 9, 2017, at 7:24 AM, Tom de Vries <tom_devr...@mentor.com> wrote:
this patch adds effective target stack_size.
OK for trunk if x86_64 and nvptx testing succeeds?
Ok.
The only last issue in this area that I know about is that there are a few more
test cases that need up to 48 MB to run, the problem is that targets might have
substantially less memory. Stack size is one of the ways this problem can be
exposed. The failure to load case is or can be handled in other ways, but the
dynamic allocation case I think is relatively poorly handled. On my machine, I
just punted by running on a virtual simulator that I pushed memory up to 48 MB
and ignored the issue. If anyone wants to try their hand at it, I'd be happy
to review some patches. For those on demand virtual memory systems, of course,
the problem is invisible. I didn't have any good ideas in this area. Marking
large memory test cases with size information, and then just trimming based
upon size was my only thought. Not exactly portable, as the exact size of any
test case is of course target dependent; but, if we get close enough, it can
provide enough of a solution I think.
If people have better ideas in this area, even if you don't want to implement
them, it'd be nice to hear about them.
After this commit (r249090), I've noticed that badalloc1.C fails at
execution on aarch64 and arm bare-metal targets.
It is compiled with -DSTACK_SIZE=16384, maybe that's too small?
I think that what's going on is the following:
- your board description file for aarch64 and arm bare-metal sets
gcc,stack_size
- before I committed the patch, STACK_SIZE was not defined when
compiling this testcase, because the activated .exp files do not
define it
- after I committed the patch, STACK_SIZE started to be defined, and
the test started to fail
I'm not sure if this test was ever compiled with STACK_SIZE defined.
Either way, the test-case uses the presence of STACK_SIZE, not the
actual value, so changing the value of gcc,stack_size won't make a
difference.
Ideally you'd find out what the exact reason for the failure is, and
update the test-case accordingly.
The easiest thing we can do is to remove the STACK_SIZE setting in the
test-case (and to avoid confusion, remove all the dead
STACK_SIZE-enabled code), which returns the status quo of before the patch.
Thanks,
- Tom
