From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 49C1D3858409; Mon,  5 Feb 2024 13:30:38 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 49C1D3858409
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1707139838;
	bh=IIYBwVqho1ubvh2BNO9VDbBMNSQjnUb/B1UXq0tMKcQ=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=eJVkB0JQzIPXBoMbKRx9PQuEXQd4b16WebsFw+FWmlmJxU7aZi7hoWmo4tdMtb6TH
	 dr3qzuvofwNrZlzWX9IIzDfPoE7xltEgPFWhRMYy+2+csXs7jkuO5HPfy9y2TISa8L
	 dZHX38A4ju5DUCh3Xzo5xUmGlhBr3W7MO6/ksXTU=
From: "linkw at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug testsuite/106680] Test gcc.target/powerpc/bswap64-4.c fails on
 32-bit BE
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2024 13:30:37 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: testsuite
X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: FIXED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-106680-4-qnMzegdcGl@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106680-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106680-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106680

--- Comment #12 from Kewen Lin <linkw at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Sebastian Huber from comment #10)
> (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #9)
> > Note that now we only disable implicit powerpc64 for -m32 when the
> > OS_MISSING_POWERPC64 is set.
> >=20
> >   /* Don't expect powerpc64 enabled on those OSes with OS_MISSING_POWER=
PC64,
> >      since they do not save and restore the high half of the GPRs corre=
ctly
> >      in all cases.  If the user explicitly specifies it, we won't inter=
fere
> >      with the user's specification.  */
> > #ifdef OS_MISSING_POWERPC64
> >   if (OS_MISSING_POWERPC64
> >       && TARGET_32BIT
> >       && TARGET_POWERPC64
> >       && !(rs6000_isa_flags_explicit & OPTION_MASK_POWERPC64))
> >     rs6000_isa_flags &=3D ~OPTION_MASK_POWERPC64;
> > #endif
> >=20
> > But rtems.h doesn't define OS_MISSING_POWERPC64
>=20
> RTEMS supports the 64-bit PowerPC for the 64-bit multilibs.
>=20

64-bit kernel should support 64-bit PowerPC, but does 32-bit kernel support
saving and restoring 64-bit regs?

The current rtems.h is saying yes, if it's no, we should fix the rtems.h and
you won't need the explicit -mno-powerpc64 then.


btw, take the comments in freebsd64.h for example.

/* FreeBSD doesn't support saving and restoring 64-bit regs with a 32-bit
   kernel. This is supported when running on a 64-bit kernel with
   COMPAT_FREEBSD32, but tell GCC it isn't so that our 32-bit binaries
   are compatible. */
#define OS_MISSING_POWERPC64 !TARGET_64BIT=