From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 61017 invoked by alias); 12 Dec 2018 10:03:41 -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 60998 invoked by uid 89); 12 Dec 2018 10:03:40 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?No, score=2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,BODY_8BITS,GARBLED_BODY,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=8:=d0=bf, mandatory, Indeed, 52813?= X-HELO: mail-vs1-f66.google.com Received: from mail-vs1-f66.google.com (HELO mail-vs1-f66.google.com) (209.85.217.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 10:03:38 +0000 Received: by mail-vs1-f66.google.com with SMTP id x1so10675027vsc.10 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 02:03:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xgp313U+OPBt8MVu+6dYKzybzoZhb5gfmXMLScGQlvA=; b=j0hk667wySMy2X7AbK+5G298qU1stJzsODNscSKitnBGjzyH5QJ9Y4zjjOhirPnN0j 9OG0qKa8KvtS7EAYBbJkA2LKvIQyK6D74tdgE3PXt94MmqFwJaimE0gNYFu8HEpiDIOD RmpBoDK5efFmFJlZTk3lzhSnMZ7rMGhFlMLwI= MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20181209100856.14051-1-dimitar@dinux.eu> <87woohsk32.fsf@arm.com> <2807771.CbC4dySGB1@tpdeb> <87woog9i32.fsf@arm.com> In-Reply-To: From: Christophe Lyon Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 10:03:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] PR target/52813 and target/11807 To: dimitar@dinux.eu, gcc Patches Cc: Richard Sandiford , "Thomas Preud'homme" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-12/txt/msg00776.txt.bz2 On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 10:42, Christophe Lyon wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 16:52, Richard Sandiford > wrote: > > > > Dimitar Dimitrov writes: > > > On =D0=BF=D0=BE=D0=BD=D0=B5=D0=B4=D0=B5=D0=BB=D0=BD=D0=B8=D0=BA, 10 = =D0=B4=D0=B5=D0=BA=D0=B5=D0=BC=D0=B2=D1=80=D0=B8 2018 =D0=B3. 11:21:53 EET = Richard Sandiford wrote: > > >> Dimitar Dimitrov writes: > > >> > I have tested this fix on x86_64 host, and found no regression in = the C > > >> > and C++ testsuites. I'm marking this patch as RFC simply because = I don't > > >> > have experience with other architectures, and I don't have a setup= to > > >> > test all architectures supported by GCC. > > >> > > > >> > gcc/ChangeLog: > > >> > > > >> > 2018-12-07 Dimitar Dimitrov > > >> > > > >> > * cfgexpand.c (asm_clobber_reg_is_valid): Also produce > > >> > error when stack pointer is clobbered. > > >> > (expand_asm_stmt): Refactor clobber check in separate function. > > >> > > > >> > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > >> > > > >> > 2018-12-07 Dimitar Dimitrov > > >> > > > >> > * gcc.target/i386/pr52813.c: New test. > > >> > > > >> > Signed-off-by: Dimitar Dimitrov > > >> > > >> LGTM. Do you have a copyright assignment on file? 'Fraid this is > > >> probably big enough to need one. > > > Yes, I have copyright assignment. > > > > OK, great. I went ahead and applied the patch. > > > > Hi, > > This patch introduces a regression on arm: > FAIL: gcc.target/arm/pr77904.c (test for excess errors) > Excess errors: > /gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr77904.c:7:3: error: Stack Pointer > register clobbered by 'sp' in 'asm' > > Indeed the testcase has an explicit: > __asm volatile ("" : : : "sp"); > which is now rejected. > > Thomas, is that mandatory to test your code to fix pr77904? > > Thanks, > > Christophe > And just noticed it causes a failure to build GDB for x86_64: gdb-8.1-release/gdb/nat/linux-ptrace.c: In function 'void linux_ptrace_init_warnings()': gdb-8.1-release/gdb/nat/linux-ptrace.c:149:23: error: Stack Pointer register clobbered by '%rsp' in 'asm' 149 | : "%rsp", "memory"); | ^ Makefile:1640: recipe for target 'linux-ptrace.o' failed I didn't check if the GDB code is legitimate though.... > > Thanks, > > Richard