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] |
Hello Jakub et al., I went through all your emails and the patch above will fix the following issues: 1. Bug in the fib<>.c test case where it should recursively call fib_serial instead of fib() in the serial case. 2. Remove duplicate or unwanted test case flags (e.g. there were cases were -g and "-O0 -g" were both tested, so I took out one of them) 3. Called builtin_abort() instead of returning a non-zero return value for main in the test cases. 4. Reduce the iteration of fib -- the main reason why I had a larger iteration is that we wanted to force a steal, but I already have a test case that will do that. So, if there is any issue in that logic, that code should fail. Also, with all these changes, make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix/-m32 cilk-plus.exp' and make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix cilk-plus.exp' runs are significantly faster. Here are the ChangeLog entries: +2013-11-05 Balaji V. Iyer <balaji.v.iyer@intel.com> + + * c-c++-common/cilk-plus/CK/fib.c: Reduced the iteration from + 40 to 30. Replaced iteration variable with a #define. Instead of + returning non-zero value for error, called __builtin_abort (). Fixed + a bug of calling fib_serial in serial case instead of fib. + * c-c++-common/cilk-plus/CK/fib_init_expr_xy.c: Likewise. + * c-c++-common/cilk-plus/CK/fib_no_return.c: Likewise. + * c-c++-common/cilk-plus/CK/fib_no_sync.c: Likewise. + * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/cilk-plus.exp: Removed duplicate/un-necessary + compiler flag testing. + Is this Ok to check in? Thanks, Balaji V. Iyer. > -----Original Message----- > From: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches- > owner@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Jakub Jelinek > Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2013 6:33 AM > To: Iyer, Balaji V > Cc: Iain Sandoe; Joseph S. Myers; Tobias Burnus; gcc patches > Subject: Re: Testsuite / Cilk Plus: Include library path in compile flags in > gcc.dg/cilk-plus/cilk-plus.exp > > On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 12:21:04PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Tests that many seconds or more on fast machines, especially if you > > run them > > 25 times, are simply not appropriate for gcc testsuite, at least not > > by default. We have run_expensive_tests (from > GCC_RUN_EXPENSIVE_TESTS > > in environment), which can be used say for: > > /* { dg-additional-options "-DEXPENSIVE" { target run_expensive_tests > > } } */ or // { dg-additional-options "-DASAN_AVOID_EXPENSIVE_TESTS=1" > > { target { ! run_expensive_tests } } } or > > /* { dg-skip-if "" { ! run_expensive_tests } { "*" } { "-O2" } } */ > > (just grep for it), but still it shouldn't be prohibitively slow. > > Remember what is slow on fast machines might turn into days on really > > slow machines. Say, if all you are looking for is look for library > > synchronization issues, I guess all optimization levels still result > > in similar pattern of library calls, so even for run_expensive_tests > > you could use higher iteration count for a single optimization level > > (say -O2) and for all others just use smaller iteration count. > > Oh, another thing, runtime tests should abort () or __builtin_abort () on > failure, rather then just exit with non-zero status. > > Also, I wonder about the fib_* tests, fib_serial calls fib rather than fib_serial, > so effectively the only difference between calling fib_serial and fib is just the > outermost iteration. Also, are you really sure you have to call fib with all > values from 0 up to 40? Isn't it enough to just call fib (40) once and compare > that with precomputed fib (40) number? > Because, when a single test takes about 2 minutes to run, it is really too > much, and very much unnecessarily so. > > Jakub
Attachment:
diff.txt
Description: diff.txt
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |