| Message ID | 77D1E479-4C62-4764-BD62-FB9D9BF89473@comcast.net |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 01/01/2016 07:13 PM, Mike Stump wrote: > cilkplus fails without pthreads for me: > > xg++: error: unrecognized command line option '-pthread' compiler > exited with status 1 output is: xg++: error: unrecognized command > line option '-pthread' > @@ -1450,6 +1450,10 @@ proc check_effective_target_cilkplus { } { > return 0; > } > > + if { ! [check_effective_target_pthread] } { > + return 0; > + } > + I think you'll also want to revert Nathan's earlier change that adds just nvptx for the same reason. Ok with that change. Bernd
On 01/01/16 13:13, Mike Stump wrote: > cilkplus fails without pthreads for me: > > xg++: error: unrecognized command line option '-pthread' > compiler exited with status 1 > output is: > xg++: error: unrecognized command line option '-pthread' > > FAIL: c-c++-common/attr-simd-3.c -std=gnu++14 PR68158 (test for errors, line 5) > > I suspect pthreads is a fairly hard requirement. Either a test compile and link needs to be done, or we need to be able to whack out the tests on non-pthread systems. > > Ok? Probably not. See the discussion at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-12/msg01882.html Admittedly, that was annotating the test directly, but Rainer's comment suggests to me that requiring pthreads would be too great a hammer. You don't say what target -- is it a system where a target triplet is insufficient for this check? nathan
On 01/04/16 10:06, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 01/01/2016 07:13 PM, Mike Stump wrote: >> cilkplus fails without pthreads for me: >> >> xg++: error: unrecognized command line option '-pthread' compiler >> exited with status 1 output is: xg++: error: unrecognized command >> line option '-pthread' > > > @@ -1450,6 +1450,10 @@ proc check_effective_target_cilkplus { } { > > return 0; > > } > > > > + if { ! [check_effective_target_pthread] } { > > + return 0; > > + } > > + > > I think you'll also want to revert Nathan's earlier change that adds just nvptx > for the same reason. Ok with that change. Yes please. nathan
On Jan 4, 2016, at 9:09 AM, Nathan Sidwell <nathan@acm.org> wrote: > On 01/04/16 10:06, Bernd Schmidt wrote: >> On 01/01/2016 07:13 PM, Mike Stump wrote: >>> cilkplus fails without pthreads for me: >>> >>> xg++: error: unrecognized command line option '-pthread' compiler >>> exited with status 1 output is: xg++: error: unrecognized command >>> line option '-pthread' >> >> > @@ -1450,6 +1450,10 @@ proc check_effective_target_cilkplus { } { >> > return 0; >> > } >> > >> > + if { ! [check_effective_target_pthread] } { >> > + return 0; >> > + } >> > + >> >> I think you'll also want to revert Nathan's earlier change that adds just nvptx >> for the same reason. Ok with that change. > > Yes please. I believe that patch has: +/* { dg-do compile { target cilkplus } } */ in it, and this I believe is required for the test to be skipped on my target?
On 01/04/16 14:19, Mike Stump wrote: > I believe that patch has: > > +/* { dg-do compile { target cilkplus } } */ > > in it, and this I believe is required for the test to be skipped on my target? that bit is still necessary. It's the bit in the .exp file testing nvptx-*-* that's no longer needed. nathan
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp index 144e4e9..6d25666 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp @@ -1450,6 +1450,10 @@ proc check_effective_target_cilkplus { } { return 0; } + if { ! [check_effective_target_pthread] } { + return 0; + } + return 1 }