This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH 4/4] Un-XFAIL ssa-dom-cse-2.c for most platforms
- From: Bill Schmidt <wschmidt at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: Alan Lawrence <alan dot lawrence at foss dot arm dot com>
- Cc: David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 10:08:21 -0600
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] Un-XFAIL ssa-dom-cse-2.c for most platforms
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1450703608-8617-1-git-send-email-alan dot lawrence at arm dot com> <1450703608-8617-5-git-send-email-alan dot lawrence at arm dot com> <CAGWvnymtU9WWv7tYmcHYn98OPah773j4WyHbKDwJ+GQ+db3Jhg at mail dot gmail dot com> <1450709954 dot 8329 dot 67 dot camel at gnopaine> <5678191B dot 4030608 at foss dot arm dot com> <1450712016 dot 8329 dot 72 dot camel at gnopaine> <567973AB dot 705 at foss dot arm dot com>
On Tue, 2015-12-22 at 16:00 +0000, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> On 21/12/15 15:33, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> >>
> >> Not on a stage1 compiler - check_p8vector_hw_available itself requires being
> >> able to run executables - I'll check on gcc112. However, both look like they're
> >> really about the host (ability to execute an asm instruction), not the target
> >> (/ability for gcc to output such an instruction)....
> >
> > Hm, that looks like a pervasive problem for powerpc. There are a number
> > of things that are supposed to be testing effective target but rely on
> > check_p8vector_hw_available, which as you note requires executing an
> > instruction and is really about the host. We need to clean that up; I
> > should probably open a bug. Kind of amazed this has gotten past us for
> > a couple of years.
>
> Well, I was about to apologize for making a bogus remark. A really "proper"
> setup, would be to tell dejagnu to run your execution tests in some kind of
> emulator/simulator (on your host, perhaps one kind of powerpc) that
> only/additionally runs instructions for the other, _target_, kind of
> powerpc...and whatever setup you'd need for all that probably does not live in
> the GCC repository!
Yeah -- after I wrote that, I looked around some more, and it seems that
this is relatively common practice. I agree that it would be pretty
tough to set this up properly...
>
> > For now, just XFAILing for powerpc seems the best alternative for this
> > test.
>
> Ok, thanks.
>
>
> --Alan
>