On 02/03/2021 18:35, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 19:18, Richard Earnshaw
> <richard.earns...@foss.arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 02/03/2021 18:14, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> On 02/03/2021 18:10, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 17:25, Richard Earnshaw
>>>> <richard.earns...@foss.arm.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 02/03/2021 16:19, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>>>>> On 01/03/2021 15:26, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>>>>>> Ping?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 at 10:01, Christophe Lyon
>>>>>>> <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ping?
>>>>>>>> I guess that's obvious enough?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 10:03, Christophe Lyon
>>>>>>>> <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Depending on how the toolchain is configured or how the testsuite is
>>>>>>>>> executed, -mthumb may not be compatible. Like for other tests, skip
>>>>>>>>> pr97969.c in this case.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For instance arm-linux-gnueabihf and -march=armv5t in RUNTESTFLAGS.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-27 Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> gcc/testsuite/
>>>>>>>>> PR target/97969
>>>>>>>>> * gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c: Skip if thumb mode is not available.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c
>>>>>>>>> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c
>>>>>>>>> index 714a1d1..0b5d07f 100644
>>>>>>>>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c
>>>>>>>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c
>>>>>>>>> @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
>>>>>>>>> /* { dg-do compile } */
>>>>>>>>> +/* { dg-skip-if "" { ! { arm_thumb1_ok || arm_thumb2_ok } } } */
>>>>>>>>> /* { dg-options "-std=c99 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mthumb -w -Os" }
>>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> typedef a[23];
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm working on a patch to make this sort of change unnecessary (I hope).
>>>>>> Just running some final checks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> R.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, wait. This one already has an explicit -mthumb, so my patch won't
>>>>> affect this. But why is -mthumb needed for this test anyway? It's just
>>>>> a compilation test, so why not drop that and we'll generally get better
>>>>> coverage all round.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For instance I see the test fail for target arm-none-linux-gnueabihf
>>>> --with-mode arm --with-cpu cortex-a9 --with-fpu vfp
>>>> and running the tests with -march=armv5t
>>>>
>>>> We get the famous thumb-1 + hard-float ABI not supported.
>>>>
>>>> I guess -mthumb is inherited from the bug report?
>>>>
>>>> Christophe
>>>>
>>>
>>> dropping the -mthumb should fix that though?
>>>
>>> In fact, I'd drop -Os as well, it's not needed as -Os is just one of the
>>> many options that are used to build this test already.
>>>
>>> R.
>>>
>>
>> But maybe then we need to change dg-options into dg-add-options.
>>
>
> Not sure to follow: the test is compiled only once, with:
> -std=c99 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mthumb -w -Os
> in my logs
>
I think it's only run the once /because/ the test sets dg-options rather
than dg-add-options.
R.
