This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH][ARM] PR target/67929 Tighten vfp3_const_double_for_bits checks
- From: Richard Earnshaw <Richard dot Earnshaw at foss dot arm dot com>
- To: Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana dot radhakrishnan at foss dot arm dot com>, Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo dot tkachov at arm dot com>, Yvan Roux <yvan dot roux at linaro dot org>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana dot radhakrishnan at arm dot com>, Richard Earnshaw <Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 11:24:48 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH][ARM] PR target/67929 Tighten vfp3_const_double_for_bits checks
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <561E4941 dot 6030204 at arm dot com> <CAJA7tRb86KziwJrB9tB-=7b5h6kY=AnHJFa3GAR_hA4sCP7dRw at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAD57uCc19EnKh7uamjimE5RsdyeK5hVgAD=a9vpTm5Og6b=_3A at mail dot gmail dot com> <563720F1 dot 3070903 at foss dot arm dot com> <56372AC6 dot 6050902 at arm dot com> <56372C2C dot 9030907 at foss dot arm dot com>
On 02/11/15 09:26, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>
>
> On 02/11/15 09:20, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>>
>> On 02/11/15 08:38, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>>>>>> 2015-10-12 Kyrylo Tkachov <kyrylo.tkachov@arm.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PR target/67929
>>>>>> * gcc.target/arm/pr67929_1.c: New test.
>>>> This test fails when tested on hard-float targets, adding the
>>>> following line to avoid testing it in such cases will fix the issue,
>>>> but I wonder if there is a better dejaGNU directives sequence to do
>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> /* { dg-skip-if "avoid conflicting multilib options" { *-*-*eabihf } {
>>>> "*" } { "" } } */
>>> No, not without further investigation into why the test is failing.
>>
>> I believe it's the same issue that Christophe reported
>> in the comment for https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67929.
>> It's because /* { dg-add-options arm_vfp3 } */ added -mfloat-abi=softfp but
>> the crt* files were compiled for hardfp. It's a testism.
>> I think adding an explicit -mfloat-abi=hard and gating on arm_hard_vfp_ok?
>
> No, see my other response.
>
> Looking at it again, I can't see anything ARM specific in the source
> that causes this to remain in gcc.target/arm.
>
> Instead remove all the special casing and move it into gcc.c-torture/execute.
>
Agreed, but foo() should be marked no-inline, no-clone if doing that.
R.
> regards
> Ramana
>
>>
>>> regards
>>> Ramana
>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Yvan
>>>>
>>