This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

RE: [PING] [PATCH, ARM, testcase] Skip target arm-neon for lp1243022.c



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Earnshaw
> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 1:01 AM
> To: Zhenqiang Chen
> Cc: 'Jeff Law'; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Ramana Radhakrishnan
> Subject: Re: [PING] [PATCH, ARM, testcase] Skip target arm-neon for
> lp1243022.c
> 
> On 28/11/13 06:17, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jeff Law [mailto:law@redhat.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 12:43 AM
> >> To: Zhenqiang Chen; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> >> Cc: Ramana Radhakrishnan; Richard Earnshaw
> >> Subject: Re: [PING] [PATCH, ARM, testcase] Skip target arm-neon for
> >> lp1243022.c
> >>
> >> On 11/27/13 02:05, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
> >>> Ping?
> >> Thanks for including the actual patch you're pinging, it helps :-)
> >>
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> lp1243022.c will fail with options: -mfpu=neon -mfloat-abi=hard.
> >>>>
> >>>> Logs show it does not generate auto-incremental instruction in pass
> >>>> auto_inc_dec. In this case, the check of REG_INC note at subreg2
> >>>> will be invalid. So skip the check for target arm-neon.
> >>>>
> >>>> All PASS with the following options:
> >>>>
> >>>> -mthumb/-mcpu=cortex-a9/-mfloat-abi=hard
> >>>> -mthumb/-mcpu=cortex-a9/-mfloat-abi=soft
> >>>> -mthumb/-mcpu=cortex-a9/-mfloat-abi=softfp
> >>>> -mthumb/-mcpu=cortex-a9/-mfloat-abi=soft/-mfpu=vfpv3
> >>>> -mthumb/-mcpu=cortex-a9/-mfloat-abi=softfp/-mfpu=vfpv3
> >>>> -mthumb/-mcpu=cortex-a9/-mfloat-abi=hard/-mfpu=vfpv3
> >>>> -mthumb/-mcpu=cortex-a9/-mfloat-abi=soft/-mfpu=neon
> >>>> -mthumb/-mcpu=cortex-a9/-mfloat-abi=softfp/-mfpu=neon
> >>>> -mthumb/-mcpu=cortex-a9/-mfloat-abi=hard/-mfpu=neon
> >>>> -mthumb/-mcpu=cortex-a15/-mfloat-abi=hard
> >>>> -mthumb/-mcpu=cortex-a15/-mfloat-abi=soft
> >>>> -mthumb/-mcpu=cortex-a15/-mfloat-abi=softfp
> >>>> -mthumb/-mcpu=cortex-a15/-mfloat-abi=soft/-mfpu=vfpv4
> >>>> -mthumb/-mcpu=cortex-a15/-mfloat-abi=softfp/-mfpu=vfpv4
> >>>> -mthumb/-mcpu=cortex-a15/-mfloat-abi=hard/-mfpu=vfpv4
> >>>> -mthumb/-mcpu=cortex-a15/-mfloat-abi=soft/-mfpu=neon
> >>>> -mthumb/-mcpu=cortex-a15/-mfloat-abi=softfp/-mfpu=neon
> >>>> -mthumb/-mcpu=cortex-a15/-mfloat-abi=hard/-mfpu=neon
> >>>>
> >>>> Is it OK?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks!
> >>>> -Zhenqiang
> >>>>
> >>>> testsuite/ChangeLog:
> >>>> 2013-11-08  Zhenqiang Chen  <zhenqiang.chen@linaro.org>
> >>>>
> >>>>          * gcc.target/arm/lp1243022.c: Skip target arm-neon.
> >> It seems to me you should be xfailing arm-neon, not skipping the test.
> >> Unless there is some fundamental reason why we can not generate
> >> auto-inc instructions on the neon.
> >
> > Thanks for the comments. Update the test case as xfail.
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/lp1243022.c
> > b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/lp1243022.c
> > index 91a544d..b2ebe7e 100644
> > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/lp1243022.c
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/lp1243022.c
> > @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
> >  /* { dg-do compile { target arm_thumb2 } } */
> >  /* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-rtl-subreg2" } */
> >
> > -/* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump "REG_INC" "subreg2" } } */
> > +/* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump "REG_INC" "subreg2" { xfail arm_neon }
> > +} } */
> >  /* { dg-final { cleanup-rtl-dump "subreg2" } } */  struct device;
> > typedef unsigned int __u32;
> >
> >
> 
> This test looks horribly fragile, since it's taking a large chunk of code
and
> expecting a specific optimization to have occurred in exactly one place.
The
> particular instruction was a large pre-modify offset, which isn't
supported
> 
> Looking back through the original bug report, the problem was that the
> subreg2 pass was losing a REG_INC note that had previously been created.
>  Of course it's not a bug if it was never created before, but there's no
easy
> way to tell that.
> 
> On that basis, I think the original patch is the correct one, please
install that.

Thanks. The original patch was committed @r205509.

-Zhenqiang

> I must say that I do wonder what the value of some of these tests are in
the
> absence of a proper unit test environment.
> 
> R.




Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]