Re: [PATCH, GCC/testsuite/ARM] Consistently check for neon in vect effective targets

[Christophe Lyon <christophe dot lyon at linaro dot org>]

On 19 June 2017 at 11:16, Thomas Preudhomme
<thomas.preudhomme@foss.arm.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 19/06/17 08:41, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> Hi Thomas,
>>
>>
>> On 15 June 2017 at 18:18, Thomas Preudhomme
>> <thomas.preudhomme@foss.arm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Conditions checked for ARM targets in vector-related effective targets
>>> are inconsistent:
>>>
>>> * sometimes arm*-*-* is checked
>>> * sometimes Neon is checked
>>> * sometimes arm_neon_ok and sometimes arm_neon is used for neon check
>>> * sometimes check_effective_target_* is used, sometimes
>>> is-effective-target
>>>
>>> This patch consolidate all of these check into using is-effective-target
>>> arm_neon and when little endian was checked, the check is kept.
>>>
>>> ChangeLog entry is as follows:
>>>
>>> *** gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog ***
>>>
>>> 2017-06-06  Thomas Preud'homme  <thomas.preudhomme@arm.com>
>>>
>>>         * lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_vect_int):
>>> Replace
>>>         current ARM check by ARM NEON's availability check.
>>>         (check_effective_target_vect_intfloat_cvt): Likewise.
>>>         (check_effective_target_vect_uintfloat_cvt): Likewise.
>>>         (check_effective_target_vect_floatint_cvt): Likewise.
>>>         (check_effective_target_vect_floatuint_cvt): Likewise.
>>>         (check_effective_target_vect_shift): Likewise.
>>>         (check_effective_target_whole_vector_shift): Likewise.
>>>         (check_effective_target_vect_bswap): Likewise.
>>>         (check_effective_target_vect_shift_char): Likewise.
>>>         (check_effective_target_vect_long): Likewise.
>>>         (check_effective_target_vect_float): Likewise.
>>>         (check_effective_target_vect_perm): Likewise.
>>>         (check_effective_target_vect_perm_byte): Likewise.
>>>         (check_effective_target_vect_perm_short): Likewise.
>>>         (check_effective_target_vect_widen_sum_hi_to_si_pattern):
>>> Likewise.
>>>         (check_effective_target_vect_widen_sum_qi_to_hi): Likewise.
>>>         (check_effective_target_vect_widen_mult_qi_to_hi): Likewise.
>>>         (check_effective_target_vect_widen_mult_hi_to_si): Likewise.
>>>         (check_effective_target_vect_widen_mult_qi_to_hi_pattern):
>>> Likewise.
>>>         (check_effective_target_vect_widen_mult_hi_to_si_pattern):
>>> Likewise.
>>>         (check_effective_target_vect_widen_shift): Likewise.
>>>         (check_effective_target_vect_extract_even_odd): Likewise.
>>>         (check_effective_target_vect_interleave): Likewise.
>>>         (check_effective_target_vect_multiple_sizes): Likewise.
>>>         (check_effective_target_vect64): Likewise.
>>>         (check_effective_target_vect_max_reduc): Likewise.
>>>
>>> Testing: Testsuite shows no regression when targeting ARMv7-A with
>>> -mfpu=neon-fpv4 and -mfloat-abi=hard or when targeting Cortex-M3 with
>>> default FPU and float ABI (soft). Testing was done with both
>>> compare_tests
>>> and the updated dg-cmp-results proposed in
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-06/msg01030.html
>>>
>>> Is this ok for trunk?
>>>
>>
>> I applied your patch on top of r249233, and noticed quite a few changes:
>>
>> http://people.linaro.org/~christophe.lyon/cross-validation/gcc-test-patches/249233-consistent_neon_check.patch/report-build-info.html
>>
>> Note that "Big-Regression" cases are caused by the fact that there a
>> are PASS->XPASS and XFAILs disappear with your patch, and many
>> (3000-4000) PASS disappear.
>> In that intended?
>
>
> It certainly is not. I'd like to investigate this but the link to results
> for rev 249233 is broken. Could you provide me with the results you have for
> that so that I can compare manually?
>

The results for 249233 are here:
http://people.linaro.org/~christophe.lyon/cross-validation/gcc/trunk/249233/
(reminder, I'm using dejagnu-1.6+, thus pre-pending multilib flags rather than
appending)

Thanks,

Christophe

> Best regards,
>
> Thomas