This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [build, doc, testsuite] Centralise clearing hardware capabilities with Sun ld
- From: Rainer Orth <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE>
- To: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
- Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 10:04:48 +0200
- Subject: Re: [build, doc, testsuite] Centralise clearing hardware capabilities with Sun ld
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <yddsiod3n5i dot fsf at lokon dot CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE> <ydd8upwli09 dot fsf at lokon dot CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE>
Rainer Orth <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> writes:
> Rainer Orth <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> writes:
>> Prompted by the recent failures of c-c++-common/gomp/pr60823-2.c on
>> Solaris/x86 with Sun as
>> I've reworked the clearing of hardware capabilities via linker maps for
>> Sun ld, which is currently replicated in several places all over the
>> testsuite. I've chosen to use TEST_ALWAYS_FLAGS or ALWAYS_CXXFLAGS to
>> pass on the necessary linker flags.
> It turned out that more is needed to deal with the new gcc.dg/gomp and
> g++.dg/gomp failures:
> The following patch implements what I've outlined there: it introduces a
> Solaris-specific new -mclear-hwcap option, checking which version of
> the mapfile syntax works, if any. This way, all the duplication in the
> testsuite and libitm can go.
> Do deal with the OpenMP declare simd failures, this option/mapfile is
> automatically activated with -fopenmp*.
> Initial testing has concluded successfully, also on an Solaris 10/x86
> system where ld only understands the old mapfile syntax. Mainline
> bootstraps on i386-pc-solaris2.11 (as/ld, gas/ld, gas/gld),
> i386-pc-solaris2.10 (as/ld, gas/ld), and sparc-sun-solaris2.11 (as/ld)
> are still running. x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu didn't finish due to
> unrelated libgo breakage. Also, i386-pc-solaris2.9 bootstrap running on
> the 4.9 branch which is equally affected by the testsuite failures.
> Ok for mainline and 4.9 branch if those pass?
It's been a week since I've submitted the patch, so far having received
approval for the testsuite parts only.
While I don't need approval for the Solaris-only parts, it would be good
if the doc and build changes could be checked by the respective
maintainers. One might argue that they are Solaris-only, thus falling
under my maintainership, but better safe than sorry.
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University