From: Yvan Roux <yvan.roux@linaro.org>
To: Wilco Dijkstra <Wilco.Dijkstra@arm.com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo.tkachov@foss.arm.com>,
James Greenhalgh <James.Greenhalgh@arm.com>,
Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>, nd <nd@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][AArch64][GCC 6] PR target/79041: Correct -mpc-relative-literal-loads logic in aarch64_classify_symbol
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2017 10:48:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAD57uCfVS1NoDccPZpXmjH962-Acm3u+Uja6asqQTKyoD=+n0Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAD57uCc11rx01aKb+Dd45U4Ac=_WJjv3eQZXkMSUn6K9mfq9hQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 27 June 2017 at 13:14, Yvan Roux <yvan.roux@linaro.org> wrote:
> Hi Wilco
>
> On 27 June 2017 at 12:53, Wilco Dijkstra <Wilco.Dijkstra@arm.com> wrote:
>> Hi Yvan,
>>
>>> Here is the backport of Wilco's patch (r237607) along with Kyrill's
>>> one (r244643, which removed the remaining occurences of
>>> aarch64_nopcrelative_literal_loads). To fix the issue the original
>>> patch has to be modified, to keep aarch64_pcrelative_literal_loads
>>> test for large models in aarch64_classify_symbol.
>>
>> The patch looks good to me, however I can't approve it.
>
> ok thanks for the review.
>
>>> On trunk and gcc-7-branch the :lo12: relocations are not generated
>>> because of Wilco's fix for pr78733 (r243456 and 243486), but my
>>> understanding is that the bug is still present since compiling
>>> gcc.target/aarch64/pr78733.c with -mcmodel=large brings back the
>>> :lo12: relocations (I'll submit a patch to add the test back if my
>>> understanding is correct).
>>
>> You're right, eventhough -mpc-relative-literal-loads doesn't make much sense
>> in the large memory model, it seems best to keep the option orthogonal to
>> enable the workaround. I've prepared a patch to fix this on trunk/GCC7.
>> It also adds a test which we should add to your changes to GCC6 too.
>
> ok, I think it is what kugan's proposed earlier today in:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-06/msg01967.html
>
> I agree that -mpc-relative-literal-loads and large memory model
> doesn't make much sense, now it is what is used in kernel build
> system, but if you handle that in a bigger fix already, that's awesome
> :)
ping?
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-06/msg01708.html
> Thanks
> Yvan
>
>> Wilco
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-03 10:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-11 16:32 Kyrill Tkachov
2017-01-13 16:36 ` James Greenhalgh
2017-01-16 15:34 ` Kyrill Tkachov
2017-06-22 18:42 ` Yvan Roux
2017-06-27 9:17 ` Yvan Roux
2017-06-27 10:53 ` Wilco Dijkstra
2017-06-27 11:14 ` Yvan Roux
2017-07-03 10:48 ` Yvan Roux [this message]
2017-07-11 10:26 ` Yvan Roux
2017-08-04 13:50 ` Yvan Roux
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAD57uCfVS1NoDccPZpXmjH962-Acm3u+Uja6asqQTKyoD=+n0Q@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=yvan.roux@linaro.org \
--cc=James.Greenhalgh@arm.com \
--cc=Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com \
--cc=Wilco.Dijkstra@arm.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=kyrylo.tkachov@foss.arm.com \
--cc=nd@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).