[testsuite] Clean up effective_target cache

Christophe Lyon christophe.lyon@linaro.org
Fri Sep 4 13:21:00 GMT 2015


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?  I’m 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.

>
> --
> H.J.



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list