From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 68799 invoked by alias); 3 Jul 2017 10:48:45 -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 56567 invoked by uid 89); 3 Jul 2017 10:48:22 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=awesome X-HELO: mail-yw0-f170.google.com Received: from mail-yw0-f170.google.com (HELO mail-yw0-f170.google.com) (209.85.161.170) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 03 Jul 2017 10:48:20 +0000 Received: by mail-yw0-f170.google.com with SMTP id 63so69691946ywr.0 for ; Mon, 03 Jul 2017 03:48:09 -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:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MloDlWeiaXx7Z+sD8jUr8P1BZAtyCNm9UffUoaCSLro=; b=qtCphXO0PRVo7AdJ55wQcG6ROQDs1YNJ6U8il8AtHyOv5PfOeiUv6Vgsj/rVcgHBKw HnusqhdmYIoV/fjZXSm8UfzYe6n3grHse4tRNiN41brbXiqfOjrANiWSnS4pLSjXeItb mKWrvkEmN+L2qKaHXhHX4mxj6SIWWMDhwHL9pZn+vMfiLaySvcvD+u2SuaoPv/LprLGj CxBuynbbCOUBk3aUPUNiuDLvRinv8pxngm58aF0FS99JKNhw8D0j7qv0SQBDX2aNnpvG UU3ZlmbcOUKs2315fLse5rMjO3bR9ACU5ymvI6qXIA5ovFYS3icqcshvIzg/t/dugNe8 vBhQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOz5Kmuv0/EQna/6xeNMuIs1BBdQwQZ0okw1SN30f++DUgJyWOXz OZ8ZT+Llhvk75GhFsQwRTN2OlHN7GBz0nO1jeA== X-Received: by 10.129.55.83 with SMTP id e80mr28393467ywa.183.1499078887745; Mon, 03 Jul 2017 03:48:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.53.8 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 03:48:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <58765E2D.5030609@foss.arm.com> <20170113163549.GC39391@arm.com> <587CE7EC.6090208@foss.arm.com> From: Yvan Roux Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2017 10:48:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH][AArch64][GCC 6] PR target/79041: Correct -mpc-relative-literal-loads logic in aarch64_classify_symbol To: Wilco Dijkstra Cc: GCC Patches , Kyrill Tkachov , James Greenhalgh , Richard Earnshaw , nd Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-07/txt/msg00087.txt.bz2 On 27 June 2017 at 13:14, Yvan Roux wrote: > Hi Wilco > > On 27 June 2017 at 12:53, Wilco Dijkstra 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