| Message ID | 20055172-6ec9-6055-c02a-9f91b26e0296@linux.ibm.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v2,rs6000] Put dg-options before effective target checks | expand |
Hi Haochen, on 2022/9/1 13:30, HAO CHEN GUI wrote: > Hi, > This patch changes the sequence of test directives for 3 test cases. > Originally, these 3 cases got failed or unsupported on some platforms, as > their effective target checks depend on compiling options. > Thanks for the updated patch! I just found that it seems all the three test cases suffer the empty TU error issue from those has_arch* effective target checks? If yes, it looks we don't need to bother this once patch [1] gets landed? Sorry, I didn't notice and ask when reviewing the previous version. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-July/598748.html BR, Kewen > Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64-linux BE and LE with no regressions. > Is this okay for trunk? Any recommendations? Thanks a lot. > > Thanks > Gui Haochen > > ChangeLog > 2022-08-31 Haochen Gui <guihaoc@linux.ibm.com> > > rs6000: Change the sequence of test directives for some test cases. Put > dg-options before effective target checks as those has_arch_* adopt > current_compiler_flags in their checks and rely on compiling options to get an > accurate check. dg-options setting before dg-require-effective-target are > added into current_compiler_flags, but not added if they're after. So > adjusting the location of dg-options makes the check more robust. > > gcc/testsuite/ > * gcc.target/powerpc/pr92398.p9+.c: Put dg-options before effective > target check. Replace lp64 check with has_arch_ppc64 and int128. > * gcc.target/powerpc/pr92398.p9-.c: Likewise. > * gcc.target/powerpc/pr93453-1.c: Put dg-options before effective > target check. > > > patch.diff > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr92398.p9+.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr92398.p9+.c > index 72dd1d9a274..b4f5c7f4b82 100644 > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr92398.p9+.c > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr92398.p9+.c > @@ -1,6 +1,10 @@ > -/* { dg-do compile { target { lp64 && has_arch_pwr9 } } } */ > +/* { dg-do compile } */ > +/* { dg-options "-O2 -mdejagnu-cpu=power9 -mvsx" } */ > +/* { dg-require-effective-target has_arch_ppc64 } */ > +/* { dg-require-effective-target int128 } */ > /* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_vsx_ok } */ > -/* { dg-options "-O2 -mvsx" } */ > +/* The test case can be compiled on all platforms with compiling option > + -mdejagnu-cpu=power9. */ > > /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mmtvsrdd\M} 1 } } */ > /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mxxlnor\M} 1 } } */ > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr92398.p9-.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr92398.p9-.c > index bd7fa98af51..4e6a8c8cb8e 100644 > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr92398.p9-.c > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr92398.p9-.c > @@ -1,6 +1,8 @@ > -/* { dg-do compile { target { lp64 && {! has_arch_pwr9} } } } */ > -/* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_vsx_ok } */ > /* { dg-options "-O2 -mvsx" } */ > +/* { dg-do compile { target { ! has_arch_pwr9 } } } */ > +/* { dg-require-effective-target int128 } */ > +/* { dg-require-effective-target has_arch_ppc64 } */ > +/* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_vsx_ok } */ > > /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mnot\M} 2 { xfail be } } } */ > /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mstd\M} 2 { xfail { { {! has_arch_pwr9} && has_arch_pwr8 } && be } } } } */ > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr93453-1.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr93453-1.c > index b396458ba12..6f4d899c114 100644 > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr93453-1.c > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr93453-1.c > @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ > -/* { dg-do compile { target has_arch_ppc64 } } */ > +/* { dg-do compile } */ > /* { dg-options "-mdejagnu-cpu=power6 -O2" } */ > +/* { dg-require-effective-target has_arch_ppc64 } */ > > unsigned long load_byte_reverse (unsigned long *in) > {
On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 01:30:18PM +0800, HAO CHEN GUI wrote: > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr92398.p9+.c > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr92398.p9+.c > @@ -1,6 +1,10 @@ > -/* { dg-do compile { target { lp64 && has_arch_pwr9 } } } */ > +/* { dg-do compile } */ > +/* { dg-options "-O2 -mdejagnu-cpu=power9 -mvsx" } */ -mcpu=power9 already implies -mvsx. If you would keep -mvsx, that belongs *after* testing powerpc_vsx_ok. > +/* { dg-require-effective-target has_arch_ppc64 } */ > +/* { dg-require-effective-target int128 } */ > /* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_vsx_ok } */ > -/* { dg-options "-O2 -mvsx" } */ > +/* The test case can be compiled on all platforms with compiling option > + -mdejagnu-cpu=power9. */ Please don't put in comments like this: that is what the code already *does*, after all :-) > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr92398.p9-.c > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr92398.p9-.c > @@ -1,6 +1,8 @@ > -/* { dg-do compile { target { lp64 && {! has_arch_pwr9} } } } */ > -/* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_vsx_ok } */ > /* { dg-options "-O2 -mvsx" } */ You cannot add -mvsx without first testing powerpc_vsx_ok (unless it is guaranteed some other way of course; here, it isn't). > +/* { dg-do compile { target { ! has_arch_pwr9 } } } */ Please keep dg-do first thing in the file. > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr93453-1.c > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr93453-1.c > @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ > -/* { dg-do compile { target has_arch_ppc64 } } */ > +/* { dg-do compile } */ > /* { dg-options "-mdejagnu-cpu=power6 -O2" } */ > +/* { dg-require-effective-target has_arch_ppc64 } */ This is fine, but it doesn't change anything, unless we have a bug. Segher
Hi Kewen, On 1/9/2022 下午 5:34, Kewen.Lin wrote: > Thanks for the updated patch! > > I just found that it seems all the three test cases suffer the empty > TU error issue from those has_arch* effective target checks? > > If yes, it looks we don't need to bother this once patch [1] gets > landed? > > Sorry, I didn't notice and ask when reviewing the previous version. > > [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-July/598748.html Yes, those 3 test cases all suffer from "empty translation unit" problem. My patch just has an side effect which avoid "empty translation unit" problem. But the real problem is still there. pr92398.p9+.c has another problem. It's a compiling case and it should be compiled on any platform when "-mdejagnu-cpu=power9" is set in dg-options or RUNTESTFLAGS. Putting dg-options before "has_arch_pwr9" check achieves this target. Thanks Gui Haochen
Hi Segher, Thanks for your review comments. I will refine it according to your comments. On 2/9/2022 上午 12:07, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >> +/* { dg-do compile { target { ! has_arch_pwr9 } } } */ > Please keep dg-do first thing in the file. Could you inform me if it's a must to put dg-do in the first line? Here I hit a problem. "! has_arch_pwr9" can not be put into dg-require-effective-target as it has a NOT. So I put dg-options in the first line and make it ahead of dg-do. > >> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr93453-1.c >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr93453-1.c >> @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ >> -/* { dg-do compile { target has_arch_ppc64 } } */ >> +/* { dg-do compile } */ >> /* { dg-options "-mdejagnu-cpu=power6 -O2" } */ >> +/* { dg-require-effective-target has_arch_ppc64 } */ > This is fine, but it doesn't change anything, unless we have a bug. This case suffer from "empty translation unit" problem and to be unsupported on all platform. Put dg-options before the check avoid the problem. Thanks Gui Haochen
on 2022/9/2 11:23, HAO CHEN GUI wrote: > Hi Kewen, > > On 1/9/2022 下午 5:34, Kewen.Lin wrote: >> Thanks for the updated patch! >> >> I just found that it seems all the three test cases suffer the empty >> TU error issue from those has_arch* effective target checks? >> >> If yes, it looks we don't need to bother this once patch [1] gets >> landed? >> >> Sorry, I didn't notice and ask when reviewing the previous version. >> >> [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-July/598748.html > > Yes, those 3 test cases all suffer from "empty translation unit" problem. > My patch just has an side effect which avoid "empty translation unit" > problem. But the real problem is still there. OK, thanks for the information! If so, I would prefer to leave them alone for now, the issues should be fixed once [1] gets landed. > > pr92398.p9+.c has another problem. It's a compiling case and it should be > compiled on any platform when "-mdejagnu-cpu=power9" is set in dg-options > or RUNTESTFLAGS. Putting dg-options before "has_arch_pwr9" check achieves > this target. OK, then go ahead to enhance it separately. :) BR, Kewen
Hi! On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 11:43:28AM +0800, HAO CHEN GUI wrote: > On 2/9/2022 上午 12:07, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > >> +/* { dg-do compile { target { ! has_arch_pwr9 } } } */ > > Please keep dg-do first thing in the file. > Could you inform me if it's a must to put dg-do in the first line? It is customary. If you do differently it will be a lot harder for people to truly understand your tests. > Here I hit a problem. "! has_arch_pwr9" can not be put into > dg-require-effective-target as it has a NOT. dg-require-effective-target has a selector, maybe you can do something with that? dg-require-effective-target { whatever { has_arch_pwr9 } } or something like that? > >> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr93453-1.c > >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr93453-1.c > >> @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ > >> -/* { dg-do compile { target has_arch_ppc64 } } */ > >> +/* { dg-do compile } */ > >> /* { dg-options "-mdejagnu-cpu=power6 -O2" } */ > >> +/* { dg-require-effective-target has_arch_ppc64 } */ > > This is fine, but it doesn't change anything, unless we have a bug. > > This case suffer from "empty translation unit" problem and to be > unsupported on all platform. Put dg-options before the check avoid > the problem. Then please fix that problem first! It *will* come back to bite us, multiple times per week, until it is fixed. Segher
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr92398.p9+.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr92398.p9+.c index 72dd1d9a274..b4f5c7f4b82 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr92398.p9+.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr92398.p9+.c @@ -1,6 +1,10 @@ -/* { dg-do compile { target { lp64 && has_arch_pwr9 } } } */ +/* { dg-do compile } */ +/* { dg-options "-O2 -mdejagnu-cpu=power9 -mvsx" } */ +/* { dg-require-effective-target has_arch_ppc64 } */ +/* { dg-require-effective-target int128 } */ /* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_vsx_ok } */ -/* { dg-options "-O2 -mvsx" } */ +/* The test case can be compiled on all platforms with compiling option + -mdejagnu-cpu=power9. */ /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mmtvsrdd\M} 1 } } */ /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mxxlnor\M} 1 } } */ diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr92398.p9-.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr92398.p9-.c index bd7fa98af51..4e6a8c8cb8e 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr92398.p9-.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr92398.p9-.c @@ -1,6 +1,8 @@ -/* { dg-do compile { target { lp64 && {! has_arch_pwr9} } } } */ -/* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_vsx_ok } */ /* { dg-options "-O2 -mvsx" } */ +/* { dg-do compile { target { ! has_arch_pwr9 } } } */ +/* { dg-require-effective-target int128 } */ +/* { dg-require-effective-target has_arch_ppc64 } */ +/* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_vsx_ok } */ /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mnot\M} 2 { xfail be } } } */ /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mstd\M} 2 { xfail { { {! has_arch_pwr9} && has_arch_pwr8 } && be } } } } */ diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr93453-1.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr93453-1.c index b396458ba12..6f4d899c114 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr93453-1.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr93453-1.c @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ -/* { dg-do compile { target has_arch_ppc64 } } */ +/* { dg-do compile } */ /* { dg-options "-mdejagnu-cpu=power6 -O2" } */ +/* { dg-require-effective-target has_arch_ppc64 } */ unsigned long load_byte_reverse (unsigned long *in) {