[PATCH 13/14][ARM/AArch64 testsuite] Use gcc-dg-runtest in advsimd-intrinsics.exp

[Alan Lawrence]

Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 22 April 2015 at 19:36, Alan Lawrence <alan.lawrence@arm.com> wrote:
>> In the first revision of Christophe Lyon's advsimd-intrinsics tests,
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-06/msg00532.html , both
>> gcc-dg-runtest (to assemble only) and c-torture-execute were used. In review
>> the gcc-dg-runtest part was then dropped, and execution tests continued
>> using c-torture-execute. However, c-torture-execute ignores e.g. dg-options
>> directives in the individual test files, whereas gcc-dg-runtest does not.
>>
>> This patch switches to gcc-dg-runtest (with dg-do-what-default = "run") for
>> all tests, allowing use of e.g. dg-options (in testsuite patch 3/3). This
> 
> Sandra has recently committed a slightly different patch.
> 
> If you want to update your, here are few comments/questions:
> - why do you add "-w" to additional_flags?

Hmmm. Not sure now. I agree, it appears to work without, so will drop that.

> - you changed the way we iterate over the tests, but this removes the
> possiblity to actually execute only a subset of the available tests,
> such as RUNTESTFLAGS=advsimd-intrinsics.exp=vadd.c

I don't see this symptom - I am able to execute such subsets with either my, or 
Sandra's, advsimd-intrinsics.exp.

Is it that you have to check runtest_file_p because you are setting 
gcc_parallel_test_enable to 0?

I'm doing more testing now, but I think I can drop my advsimd-intrinsics.exp 
changes altogether; I'll post an updated patch series shortly.

In the meantime I'm curious as to why you found the gcc_parallel_test_enable 
necessary? (And is it safe to reset it to 1 afterwards, rather than to a saved 
value?)

TYVM for your other comments and review - I will incorporate all into my next 
revision.

Thanks, Alan