From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 63786 invoked by alias); 1 Aug 2017 13:03:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 63733 invoked by uid 89); 1 Aug 2017 13:03:29 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=preferable X-HELO: mail-lf0-f53.google.com Received: from mail-lf0-f53.google.com (HELO mail-lf0-f53.google.com) (209.85.215.53) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2017 13:03:27 +0000 Received: by mail-lf0-f53.google.com with SMTP id d17so6734126lfe.0 for ; Tue, 01 Aug 2017 06:03:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=lqtVW4oXG3OAgBF5Z8mUs8gVfoB/zirnY7uZWqgNjTg=; b=hIo/ybECDnmxDcl3SzFORb9xO3GYEhzHIelBwy2AKwUMNV6OARYgujjY4Xg8SeL7I4 EpLV0aGbIP1O7wr4ktLKzdeEGzIWpfIMRNV4jgRtuU718bdxbdm3jiyVrej63YYizvnR bqr6iKnwqttkFSf9lBa9e/qWtT8bnuRbIf60nW3B6XNFme+mg5zmdGE2Xc7uW+buKD6z TgGqRRLRGg0cxwzBP19eZNtiyjXwCXnwWn1lGYMS45Uw6ELhtNjIuo8FbU98DehrHI2l QDVnlusQiQSSD3WOh0JTe7VwyzNAm/IrDlexLULROe2dritVZrRucEHQrLi2M0REUeKx TW7w== X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw110LI/T3yUoQKo9eduxVkjfmX5obE0VDgAsoiqDk/JXGK1jHId5/ G0HVTMAmSgrK4J7y X-Received: by 10.25.196.142 with SMTP id u136mr5719926lff.159.1501592604609; Tue, 01 Aug 2017 06:03:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.65] (ppp109-252-218-78.pppoe.spdop.ru. [109.252.218.78]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 25sm1000652ljh.75.2017.08.01.06.03.21 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 01 Aug 2017 06:03:23 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Subject: Re: [PATCH v12] add -fpatchable-function-entry=N,M option From: Maxim Kuvyrkov In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2017 13:03:00 -0000 Cc: Gerald Pfeifer , Torsten Duwe , "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" , Sandra Loosemore , Marek Polacek , GCC Patches , Szabolcs Nagy , nd@arm.com, Li Bin , Jiri Kosina , Marcus Shawcroft , Takahiro Akashi , Andrew Wafaa Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20170706140311.GA20710@suse.de> <20170707193028.GA17752@suse.de> <20170726142629.GG22969@suse.de> To: Andreas Schwab X-SW-Source: 2017-08/txt/msg00076.txt.bz2 > On Aug 1, 2017, at 1:52 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote: >=20 > On Aug 01 2017, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: >=20 >> On Mon, 31 Jul 2017, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: >>> I don't see an easy way to correctly differentiate between "attribute"= =20 >>> nops and "bundle" nops, so XFAILing these tests on ia64 seems like a=20 >>> valid approach. >>=20 >> Make sense, given that the use of Itanium has gone done drastically. >=20 > You can get the same failure with any target, for example if there are > delay slots to be filled. Andreas, Do you know a reliable way of checking whether target can issue nops in sim= ple code? One alternative would be to apply testcase only to white-listed architectur= es, which is, imo, less preferable. Regards, -- Maxim Kuvyrkov www.linaro.org