On 2026-04-13 08:54, Torbjorn SVENSSON wrote:
On 2026-04-10 13:11, Richard Earnshaw (foss) wrote:
On 10/04/2026 10:47, Torbjorn SVENSSON wrote:
On 2026-04-10 11:30, Christophe Lyon wrote:
Sorry for the late reply, I have 2 questions:
On 4/9/26 16:52, Torbjorn SVENSSON wrote:
On 2026-04-08 11:57, Richard Earnshaw (foss) wrote:
On 07/04/2026 10:23, Torbjörn SVENSSON wrote:
Changes since v1:
- Limited xfail check to arm* after Linaro CI notification of regression for
aarch64-linux-gnu.
Ok for trunk and releases/gcc-15?
--
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR testsuite/113276
* gcc.dg/torture/fp-double-convert-float-1.c: Xfail test for arm*
unless soft float or double-precision FP.
* lib/target-supports.exp
(check_effective_target_arm_softfp_or_dp): New function.
Signed-off-by: Torbjörn SVENSSON <[email protected]>
---
.../gcc.dg/torture/fp-double-convert-float-1.c | 2 +-
gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp | 16 ++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/fp-double-convert-float-1.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/fp-double-convert-float-1.c
index 1c28a9e101e..7326ae10a9f 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/fp-double-convert-float-1.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/fp-double-convert-float-1.c
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
/* PR57245 */
-/* { dg-do run } */
+/* { dg-do run { xfail { arm*-*-* && { ! arm_softfp_or_dp } } } } */
/* { dg-require-effective-target fenv } */
/* { dg-require-effective-target hard_float } */
/* { dg-additional-options "-frounding-math" } */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp b/gcc/testsuite/
lib/target-supports.exp
index 3f428ad5817..b61f77233f2 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
@@ -6352,6 +6352,22 @@ foreach { armfunc armflag armdefs } {
}]
}
+# Return 1 if current target uses soft-float or supports double- precision FP
+proc check_effective_target_arm_softfp_or_dp { } {
+ if { ![istarget arm*-*-*] } {
+ return 0
+ }
+
+ return [check_no_compiler_messages arm_softfp_or_dp assembly {
+ #ifdef __ARM_FP // Not defined => soft float
+ # if ((__ARM_FP & 8) == 0)
+ # error __ARM_FP indicates that double-precision is not supported
+ # endif
+ #endif
+ int main (void) { return 0; }
+ } "" ]
+}
+
# Return 1 if GCC was configured with --with-mode=
proc check_effective_target_default_mode { } {
I think I'd rather the test be called arm_mixed_fp (ie a mix of hard and
softfp). The logic for that is inverted from your current test, but then you
don't need the inversion when you use the test for the xfail.
OK with that change.
Looks like we all forgot to request an entry in sourcebuild.texi for the new
effective-target :-(
Ouch, missed that one :(. I'll send a followup patch for that shortly.
My other question is more for Richard: I'm confused after reading the PR,
arm_softfp_or_dp is the name you suggested there, so you changed your mind to
arm_mixed_fp?
But don't we want to make sure HW DP is supported?
Why do we want this to be OK in the soft-FP case?
The testcase has:
/* { dg-require-effective-target hard_float } */
When I inverted the logic, the function looks like this:
# Return 1 if current target supports both single- and double-precision FP
proc check_effective_target_arm_mixed_fp { } {
if { ![istarget arm*-*-*] } {
return 0
}
return [check_no_compiler_messages arm_mixed_fp assembly {
#ifndef __ARM_FP
# error __ARM_FP not defined
#elif ((__ARM_FP & 0xc) == 0xc)
# error __ARM_FP indicates that both single- and double-precision FP
are supported
#endif
int main (void) { return 0; }
} "" ]
}
I would have thought this could be simplified to
// Mixed FP means we have hw FP, but only for SFmode (ignores HFmode)
#if !defined(__ARM_FP) || (__ARM_FP & 0xc) != 0x4)
#error Not mixed FP
#endif
Well, that's a different way to describe the same state.
My way detects that DP is set but SP is not. Maybe that's not a case we need to
worry about?
I never got any reply to this.
Do you want the test to be modified or can it be left as-is?
I need to know this part so I can anticipate if I should pick the commit as-is
for releases/gcc-15 or if it needs to be updated first.
Kind regards,
Torbjörn
Kind regards,
Torbjörn
R.
This means, that only the case where FPU is selected and it supports both SP
and DP, then the check will succeed.
Did I misunderstand the intention of the request to invert here?
Kind regards,
Torbjörn
Thanks,
Christophe
Pushed as r16-8549-g3d30fc2f73ccc1.
I'll pick this for releases/gcc-15 mid next week unless I see a regression
report.
Kind regards,
Torbjörn
R.
