Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] aarch64: Fix bit-field alignment in param passing [PR105549]

[Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@arm.com>]

On 1/17/23 13:48, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 01:43:35PM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> As a follow-up to this, I ran the full testsuite with -fstack-protector-all
>> and this results in lots of failures (~65000 in gcc.sum alone).
> 
> I guess that is way too much.
> 
>> Since you also mentioned -fstack-protector-strong, I ran the full testsuite
>> with it, which results in more failures too but the difference is much
>> smaller than with -fstack-protector=all (from 126 FAIL to 309)
> 
> But this could be doable by adding explicit -fno-stack-protector options
> to test that can't handle those.
> 
>> For instance, I see many failures with -fstack-protector-strong in:
>> gcc.target/aarch64/sve/pcs/
>> It looks like you have them too, according to the logs I downloaded from
>> your link above.
>>
>> So is it worth adding -fno-stack-protector to my few new testcases?
>> (I can, no problem, but just wondering why you appear to notice the problem
>> with my new tests, and not with the ones in gcc.target/aarch64/sve/pcs/)
> 
> Because I mainly look for regressions (compare the test_summary
> dumps against older gcc build); if something fails for years, it doesn't
> show up in the regression diffs.
> 

OK that's what I thought, thanks for confirming.

I'll add -fno-stack-protector to my tests.

Thanks,

Christophe

> 	Jakub
>