This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH 2/3] Run profile feedback tests with autofdo
- From: "Bin.Cheng" <amker dot cheng at gmail dot com>
- To: Andi Kleen <andi at firstfloor dot org>
- Cc: gcc-patches List <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 12:06:39 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Run profile feedback tests with autofdo
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <CAHFci2-Jv0WfW_2n+AG8B1WQLe7vt7j8Z2Nsi3=ySczfirstname.lastname@example.org> <20160714105512.GE5871@two.firstfloor.org>
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Andi Kleen <email@example.com> wrote:
>> After this patch, I got below test results with command line: make
>> check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="tree-prof.exp" -k
> That is expected if you don't have autofdo. You would prefer to hide it?
>> Also I got unstable test result in tree-prof.exp if I run
>> aforementioned command line with -jnum (parallelly). Does the patch
>> has problem in parallel testing?
> I haven't seen that. Unstable in what way?
For GCC doesn't support FDO, it run below tests as you said:
PASS: gcc.dg/tree-prof/20041218-1.c compilation, -g
UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/tree-prof/20041218-1.c: Cannot run create_gcov
Normally, it doesn't create gcov data file, thus the next test is
unsupported. I guess in parallel test, the second test picks up gcov
data files from other process, which results in random pass.
Is it possible to not have these when fdo is supported?