This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
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 12:07:53 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Run profile feedback tests with autofdo
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20160623143719.17603-1-andi@firstfloor.org> <20160623143719.17603-2-andi@firstfloor.org> <20160623143719.17603-3-andi@firstfloor.org> <CAHFci2-Jv0WfW_2n+AG8B1WQLe7vt7j8Z2Nsi3=yScz+ejt-mw@mail.gmail.com> <20160714105512.GE5871@two.firstfloor.org> <CAHFci2_oL+Nu5Rh2X9RMzhHQ-iFbQC78YNunpMsJ6tmZP-HgXw@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.cheng@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> 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
> --binary /data/work/trunk/build/gcc/testsuite/gcc/20041218-1.gcda
>
> 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?
Hmm, typo: s/supported/not supported/.
Thanks,
bin