From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 968683857C44 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 18:30:37 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 968683857C44 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.crashing.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=segher@kernel.crashing.org Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id 07BIUarT014447; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 13:30:36 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id 07BIUa0B014446; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 13:30:36 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: gate.crashing.org: segher set sender to segher@kernel.crashing.org using -f Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 13:30:36 -0500 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Peter Bergner Cc: Alan Modra , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [RS6000] PR96493, powerpc local call linkage failure Message-ID: <20200811183036.GK6753@gate.crashing.org> References: <20200806132818.GF15695@bubble.grove.modra.org> <20200806223403.GX6753@gate.crashing.org> <20200807032808.GI15695@bubble.grove.modra.org> <20200811090853.GT15695@bubble.grove.modra.org> <20200811163528.GI6753@gate.crashing.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, TXREP, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR, T_SPF_PERMERROR autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 18:30:38 -0000 On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 12:36:28PM -0500, Peter Bergner wrote: > On 8/11/20 11:35 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > Hi Alan, > > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 06:38:53PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote: > >> This fixes a fail when power10 isn't supported by binutils, and > >> ensures the test isn't run without power10 hardware or simulation on > >> the off chance that power10 insns are emitted in the future for this > >> testcase. > > > > The testcases said it wanted power8, so why did it fail? GCC shouldn't > > use anything that requires p10 support in binutils then, or what do I > > miss here? > > It failed with an assembler error because one of the functions in the > test uses an attribute target power10 and GCC emits a ".machine power10" > assembler directive in case we do generate a power10 instruction(s). > The old binutils Bill used doesn't know about power10, so boom. > That is what requires the dg-require-effective-target power10_ok. Ah, okay. > Now given the power10 function is so small (just a call to a p8 > function), the chance we'll generate a p10 instruction is low (zero?), > so we could just keep the dg-do run as is (ie, always run), but > might that change one day? On a non-p10 it will just use the generated non-p10 code, and that will just work, now and for forever (yeah right :-) ) Either always running or what this patch does will work. But please add comments what the test case wants to test, and for the tricky bits. Segher