Re: Ping: [PATCH] testsuite: Tweak gcc.dg/attr-aligned.c for CRIS

[Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net>]

On Feb 27, 2023, at 5:54 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> 
> Ping...

Ok.

> 
>> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@axis.com>
>> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 21:05:29 +0100
> 
>> Asking for the lines outside the "#if __CRIS__" part.
>> Ok to commit?
>> 
>> -- >8 --
>> tm.texi says for BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT (from which
>> __BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT__ is derived): "Biggest alignment that
>> any data type can require on this machine, in bits."
>> 
>> That is, using that value might be too strict for alignment
>> of *functions* and CRIS requires at least 16-bit alignment
>> for functions.  But, one purpose of the test is to test that
>> alignment can be set to a large but valid value, so pick
>> 512, which has some use as a historically required alignment
>> for certain I/O descriptors.
>> 
>> 	* gcc.dg/attr-aligned.c: Adjust comment for ALIGN_MAX_STATIC.
>> 	(ALIGN_MAX_STATIC): Set to 512 for CRIS.
>> ---
>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/attr-aligned.c | 8 +++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/attr-aligned.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/attr-aligned.c
>> index 887bdd0f3799..4f0c885dc812 100644
>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/attr-aligned.c
>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/attr-aligned.c
>> @@ -18,6 +18,10 @@
>> # else
>> #   define ALIGN_MAX_STATIC      ALIGN_MAX_HARD
>> # endif
>> +#elif __CRIS__
>> +/* __BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT__ doesn't cover functions (16 bits for CRIS). */
>> +#  define ALIGN_MAX_STATIC      512
>> +#  define ALIGN_TOO_BIG_OFILE   (ALIGN_MAX_HARD << 1)
>> #elif pdp11
>> #  define ALIGN_MAX_STATIC      2
>> /* Work around a pdp11 ICE (see PR target/87821).  */
>> @@ -29,7 +33,9 @@
>> /* Is this processor- or operating-system specific?  */
>> #  define ALIGN_MAX_STATIC      ALIGN_MAX_HARD
>> #else
>> -   /* Guaranteed to be accepted regardless of the target.  */
>> +   /* Guaranteed to be accepted regardless of the target for objects.
>> +      This might not be true for alignment of functions though, so
>> +      may need to be set to a target-specific value above.  */
>> #  define ALIGN_MAX_STATIC      __BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT__
>>    /* Guaranteed to be rejected regardless of the target.  */
>> #  define ALIGN_TOO_BIG_OFILE   (ALIGN_MAX_HARD << 1)
>> -- 
>> 2.30.2
>>