This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [testsuite] Clean up effective_target cache
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Christophe Lyon <christophe dot lyon at linaro dot org>
- Cc: Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 07:54:32 -0700
- Subject: Re: [testsuite] Clean up effective_target cache
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAKdteObvT_g=usMxP_G0AyUWqFrXCj2AhQSj=YUGvi8v3=F1Rg at mail dot gmail dot com> <14DA89C6-4F95-4A90-847A-6B6E6909475A at comcast dot net> <CAKdteOZExg70QEBqnXku6zt174NjY=2nioA7tJAsfiX76e9uAQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAKdteOYRB=b7wbzSPcnaeeftTUOVFeiwuMbf0LzNJ6SM=czO9g at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOqXdZqpGthw+qQPsOXV0jqV-n3N--uXSQXyTeg-PWu67A at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAKdteObNxCqSP8ghZn=WRLJCYSOOtLxonOCHUFXbLqUH+GcVAQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOq9PK0riObT6wz_p=6RFat0Ai3QhNcFt0H0dpROXGMHQA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOrUK=H89=6hzkxUfN+xGaytV0OtpwqRG6com6Wvv6Hp9Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOoaLa+Zsp0bBUZtZEqfP9L5EeGa_T+z8e=8d9ZyhAz=cg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOpPQ8g151238YguaH6xbXbtbm2dO3tYo4HanmokdE2xJA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAKdteOZ15hA3QpeXZvfNWP7xqPkr6GLF0cKXAiCdR5T94CxBDA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOp-1xoh2=y-ZeCVSFUUJGHB-XjY+4tNDmv4rsXbvJEOHQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAKdteOaer76tO7QjAW9f_Vz+vgpyU9TeVb0_qz2KanZZJS4dXw at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Christophe Lyon
<christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 4 September 2015 at 15:58, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 6:15 AM, Christophe Lyon
>> <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
>>> On 4 September 2015 at 14:13, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 4:47 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 4:27 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 4:18 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Christophe Lyon
>>>>>>> <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3 September 2015 at 13:31, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Christophe Lyon
>>>>>>>>> <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1 September 2015 at 16:04, Christophe Lyon
>>>>>>>>>> <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 25 August 2015 at 17:31, Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2015, at 1:14 AM, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some subsets of the tests override ALWAYS_CXXFLAGS or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TEST_ALWAYS_FLAGS and perform effective_target support tests using
>>>>>>>>>>>>> these modified flags.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This patch adds a new function 'clear_effective_target_cache', which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is called at the end of every .exp file which overrides
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ALWAYS_CXXFLAGS or TEST_ALWAYS_FLAGS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, a simple English directive somewhere that says, if one changes ALWAYS_CXXFLAGS or TEST_ALWAYS_FLAGS then they should do a clear_effective_target_cache at the end as the target cache can make decisions based upon the flags, and those decisions need to be redone when the flags change would be nice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I do wonder, do we need to reexamine when setting the flags? Iâm thinking of a sequence like: non-thumb default, is_thumb, set flags (thumb), is_thumb. Anyway, safe to punt this until someone discovers it or is reasonable sure it happens.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, all looks good. Ok.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Here is what I have committed (r227372).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hmmm, in fact this was r227401.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It caused:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(arm_neon_ok,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(arm_neon_ok,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(arm_neon_ok,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(dfp,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(fsanitize_address,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(ia32,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(ia32,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(ia32,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(ia32,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(ia32,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(ilp32,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(ilp32,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(ilp32,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(ilp32,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(label_values,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(lp64,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(lp64,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(lp64,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(ptr32plus,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>> ERROR: can't unset "et_cache(ptr32plus,value)": no such element in array
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> on Linux/x86-64:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2015-09/msg00167.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'll have a look.
>>>>>>>> That's the configuration I used to check before committing, but I am
>>>>>>>> going to re-check.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> proc check_cached_effective_target { prop args } {
>>>>>>> global et_cache
>>>>>>> global et_prop_list
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> set target [current_target_name]
>>>>>>> if {![info exists et_cache($prop,target)]
>>>>>>> || $et_cache($prop,target) != $target} {
>>>>>>> verbose "check_cached_effective_target $prop: checking $target" 2
>>>>>>> set et_cache($prop,target) $target
>>>>>>> set et_cache($prop,value) [uplevel eval $args]
>>>>>>> lappend et_prop_list $prop
>>>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Aren't you appending $pop to et_prop_list even if it may be already
>>>>>>> on the list?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> verbose "check_cached_effective_target cached list is now:
>>>>>>> $et_prop_list" 2
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> set value $et_cache($prop,value)
>>>>>>> verbose "check_cached_effective_target $prop: returning $value for
>>>>>>> $target" 2
>>>>>>> return $value
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> H.J.
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
>>>>>> b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
>>>>>> index aad45f9..a6c16fe 100644
>>>>>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
>>>>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
>>>>>> @@ -125,7 +125,9 @@ proc check_cached_effective_target { prop args } {
>>>>>> verbose "check_cached_effective_target $prop: checking $target" 2
>>>>>> set et_cache($prop,target) $target
>>>>>> set et_cache($prop,value) [uplevel eval $args]
>>>>>> - lappend et_prop_list $prop
>>>>>> + if {[lsearch $et_prop_list $prop] < 0} {
>>>>>> + lappend et_prop_list $prop
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> verbose "check_cached_effective_target cached list is now: $et_prop_list" 2
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> set value $et_cache($prop,value)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It should be
>>>>>
>>>>> if {![info exists et_prop_list]
>>>>> || [lsearch $et_prop_list $prop] < 0} {
>>>>> lappend et_prop_list $prop
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here is a patch. OK for trunk?
>>>>
>>>
>>> It makes sense, indeed, although I still haven't managed to reproduce
>>> the issue you reported.
>>
>> The failure is random with parallel check on machines with >= 8 cores.
>>
> In fact that's because you are running the testsuite with several
> values for 'target' (unix and unix/-m32), which indeed result in
> appending $prop twice.
Is my patch correct or you have a different fix?
--
H.J.