[testsuite] Clean up effective_target cache

H.J. Lu hjl.tools@gmail.com
Fri Sep 4 14:21:00 GMT 2015


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?  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.

The failure is random with parallel check on machines with >= 8 cores.


-- 
H.J.



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list