This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH][AArch64][12/14] Target attributes and target pragmas tests
- From: James Greenhalgh <james dot greenhalgh at arm dot com>
- To: Kyrylo Tkachov <Kyrylo dot Tkachov at arm dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Marcus Shawcroft <Marcus dot Shawcroft at arm dot com>, Richard Earnshaw <Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 15:52:07 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH][AArch64][12/14] Target attributes and target pragmas tests
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <55A7CBEB dot 2080601 at arm dot com> <20150721171448 dot GC14953 at arm dot com> <55B1F9FC dot 2090606 at arm dot com> <20150803113215 dot GD10971 at arm dot com>
On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 12:32:15PM +0100, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 09:40:28AM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> >
> > On 21/07/15 18:14, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 04:21:15PM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> > >> Hi all,
> > >>
> > >> These are the tests for target attributes and pragmas.
> > >> I've tried to test for the inlining rules, some of the possible errors and
> > >> the preprocessor macros changed from target pragmas.
> > >>
> > >> Ok for trunk?
> > > Mechanical changes in the pragma tests for the sake of grammar!
> > >
> > > s/defined but shouldn't/is defined but should not be/
> > > s/not defined but should/is not defined but should be/
> > >
> > > Note that some of the errors have different text, so you'll have to run
> > > through by hand and check these are consistent.
> > >
> > > It would be good to hand some of these target attribute tests off
> > > to the assembler to make sure we are also putting out appropriate
> > > directives in our output. Perhaps "assemble" is the more appropriate
> > > dg-do directive?
> > >
> > > Some more nits below (mostly missing comments on testcases).
> >
> > Thanks, here's an updated version.
> >
> > I've also added a test for the "+nothing" architectural feature
> > attribute introduced in patch 10/14 and renamed the tests to use
> > underscores in their names.
> >
> > How's this?
>
These tests fail for me with -fPIC, where you won't get inlining of non-static
functions.
NA->FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/target_attr_14.c scan-assembler-not bl.*bar
NA->FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/target_attr_5.c scan-assembler-not bl.*bar
NA->FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/target_attr_8.c scan-assembler-not bl.*bar
NA->FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/target_attr_14.c scan-assembler-not bl.*bar
NA->FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/target_attr_5.c scan-assembler-not bl.*bar
NA->FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/target_attr_8.c scan-assembler-not bl.*bar
You'll probably want to mark the functions you expect to be inlined as
static, or otherwise skip the test for fPIC.
Thanks,
James