* [testsuite][arm] Fix cmse-15.c expected output
@ 2020-04-06 15:12 Christophe Lyon
2020-04-07 10:31 ` Andre Vieira (lists)
2020-04-08 9:47 ` Richard Sandiford
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Christophe Lyon @ 2020-04-06 15:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc Patches
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1029 bytes --]
Hi,
While checking Martin's fix for PR ipa/94445, he made me realize that
the cmse-15.c testcase still fails at -Os because ICF means that we
generate
nonsecure2:
b nonsecure0
which is OK, but does not match the currently expected
nonsecure2:
...
bl __gnu_cmse_nonsecure_call
(see https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-April/543190.html)
The test has already different expectations for v8-M and v8.1-M.
I've decided to try to use check-function-bodies to account for the
different possibilities:
- v8-M vs v8.1-M via two different prefixes
- code generation variants (-0?) via multiple regexps
I've tested that the test now passes with --target-board=-march=armv8-m.main
and --target-board=-march=armv8.1-m.main.
I feel this a bit too much of a burden for the purpose, maybe there's
a better way of handling all these alternatives (in particular,
there's a lot of duplication since the expected code for the secure*
functions is the same for v8-M and v8.1-M).
OK?
Thanks,
Christophe
[-- Attachment #2: cmse-15-function-bodies.patch.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 4401 bytes --]
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-15.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-15.c
index 0e37b50..603c456 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-15.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-15.c
@@ -1,5 +1,9 @@
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options "-mcmse" } */
+/* ARMv8-M expectation. */
+/* { dg-final { check-function-bodies "*Noclear" "" "" { target { ! arm_cmse_clear_ok } } } } */
+/* ARMv8.1-M expectation. */
+/* { dg-final { check-function-bodies "*Clear" "" "" { target arm_cmse_clear_ok } } } */
int __attribute__ ((cmse_nonsecure_call)) (*ns_foo) (void);
int (*s_bar) (void);
@@ -11,67 +15,242 @@ typedef int s_bar_t (void);
typedef int __attribute__ ((cmse_nonsecure_call)) (* ns_foo_ptr) (void);
typedef int (*s_bar_ptr) (void);
+/*
+*Clear nonsecure0:
+*Clear ...
+*Clear blxns r[0-3]
+*Clear ...
+*Noclear nonsecure0:
+*Noclear ...
+*Noclear bl __gnu_cmse_nonsecure_call
+*Noclear ...
+*/
int nonsecure0 (ns_foo_t * ns_foo_p)
{
return ns_foo_p ();
}
+/*
+*Clear nonsecure1:
+*Clear ...
+*Clear blxns r[0-3]
+*Clear ...
+*Noclear nonsecure1:
+*Noclear ...
+*Noclear bl __gnu_cmse_nonsecure_call
+*Noclear ...
+*/
int nonsecure1 (ns_foo_t ** ns_foo_p)
{
return (*ns_foo_p) ();
}
+/*
+*Clear nonsecure2:
+*Clear ...
+*Clear (
+*Clear blxns r[0-3]
+*Clear |
+*Clear b nonsecure0
+*Clear )
+*Clear ...
+*Noclear nonsecure2:
+*Noclear ...
+*Noclear (
+*Noclear bl __gnu_cmse_nonsecure_call
+*Noclear |
+*Noclear b nonsecure0
+*Noclear )
+*Noclear ...
+*/
int nonsecure2 (ns_foo_ptr ns_foo_p)
{
return ns_foo_p ();
}
+
+/*
+*Clear nonsecure3:
+*Clear ...
+*Clear blxns r[0-3]
+*Clear ...
+*Noclear nonsecure3:
+*Noclear ...
+*Noclear bl __gnu_cmse_nonsecure_call
+*Noclear ...
+*/
int nonsecure3 (ns_foo_ptr * ns_foo_p)
{
return (*ns_foo_p) ();
}
+/*
+*Clear secure0:
+*Clear ...
+*Clear (
+*Clear bx r[0-3]
+*Clear |
+*Clear blx r[0-3]
+*Clear )
+*Clear ...
+*Noclear secure0:
+*Noclear ...
+*Noclear (
+*Noclear bx r[0-3]
+*Noclear |
+*Noclear blx r[0-3]
+*Noclear )
+*Noclear ...
+*/
int secure0 (s_bar_t * s_bar_p)
{
return s_bar_p ();
}
+/*
+*Clear secure1:
+*Clear ...
+*Clear (
+*Clear bx r[0-3]
+*Clear |
+*Clear blx r[0-3]
+*Clear )
+*Clear ...
+*Noclear secure1:
+*Noclear ...
+*Noclear (
+*Noclear bx r[0-3]
+*Noclear |
+*Noclear blx r[0-3]
+*Noclear )
+*Noclear ...
+*/
int secure1 (s_bar_t ** s_bar_p)
{
return (*s_bar_p) ();
}
+/*
+*Clear secure2:
+*Clear ...
+*Clear (
+*Clear bx r[0-3]
+*Clear |
+*Clear blx r[0-3]
+*Clear |
+*Clear b secure0
+*Clear )
+*Clear ...
+*Noclear secure2:
+*Noclear ...
+*Noclear (
+*Noclear bx r[0-3]
+*Noclear |
+*Noclear blx r[0-3]
+*Noclear |
+*Noclear b secure0
+*Noclear )
+*Noclear ...
+*/
int secure2 (s_bar_ptr s_bar_p)
{
return s_bar_p ();
}
+/*
+*Clear secure3:
+*Clear ...
+*Clear (
+*Clear bx r[0-3]
+*Clear |
+*Clear blx r[0-3]
+*Clear )
+*Clear ...
+*Noclear secure3:
+*Noclear ...
+*Noclear (
+*Noclear bx r[0-3]
+*Noclear |
+*Noclear blx r[0-3]
+*Noclear )
+*Noclear ...
+*/
int secure3 (s_bar_ptr * s_bar_p)
{
return (*s_bar_p) ();
}
+/*
+*Clear nonsecure4:
+*Clear ...
+*Clear blxns r[0-3]
+*Clear ...
+*Noclear nonsecure4:
+*Noclear ...
+*Noclear bl __gnu_cmse_nonsecure_call
+*Noclear ...
+*/
int nonsecure4 (void)
{
return ns_foo ();
}
+/*
+*Clear nonsecure5:
+*Clear ...
+*Clear blxns r[0-3]
+*Clear ...
+*Noclear nonsecure5:
+*Noclear ...
+*Noclear bl __gnu_cmse_nonsecure_call
+*Noclear ...
+*/
int nonsecure5 (void)
{
return (*ns_foo2) ();
}
+/*
+*Clear secure4:
+*Clear ...
+*Clear (
+*Clear bx r[0-3]
+*Clear |
+*Clear blx r[0-3]
+*Clear )
+*Clear ...
+*Noclear secure4:
+*Noclear ...
+*Noclear (
+*Noclear bx r[0-3]
+*Noclear |
+*Noclear blx r[0-3]
+*Noclear )
+*Noclear ...
+*/
int secure4 (void)
{
return s_bar ();
}
+/*
+*Clear secure5:
+*Clear ...
+*Clear (
+*Clear bx r[0-3]
+*Clear |
+*Clear blx r[0-3]
+*Clear )
+*Clear ...
+*Noclear secure5:
+*Noclear ...
+*Noclear (
+*Noclear bx r[0-3]
+*Noclear |
+*Noclear blx r[0-3]
+*Noclear )
+*Noclear ...
+*/
int secure5 (void)
{
return (*s_bar2) ();
}
-
-/* ARMv8-M expectation. */
-/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "bl\\s+__gnu_cmse_nonsecure_call" 6 { target { ! arm_cmse_clear_ok } } } } */
-
-/* ARMv8.1-M expectation. */
-/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "blxns" 6 { target arm_cmse_clear_ok } } } */
[-- Attachment #3: cmse-15-function-bodies.chlog.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 137 bytes --]
2020-04-06 Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-15.c: Use check-function-bodies.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [testsuite][arm] Fix cmse-15.c expected output
2020-04-06 15:12 [testsuite][arm] Fix cmse-15.c expected output Christophe Lyon
@ 2020-04-07 10:31 ` Andre Vieira (lists)
2020-04-07 10:54 ` Christophe Lyon
2020-04-08 9:47 ` Richard Sandiford
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andre Vieira (lists) @ 2020-04-07 10:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christophe Lyon, gcc Patches
On 06/04/2020 16:12, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While checking Martin's fix for PR ipa/94445, he made me realize that
> the cmse-15.c testcase still fails at -Os because ICF means that we
> generate
> nonsecure2:
> b nonsecure0
>
> which is OK, but does not match the currently expected
> nonsecure2:
> ...
> bl __gnu_cmse_nonsecure_call
>
> (see https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-April/543190.html)
>
> The test has already different expectations for v8-M and v8.1-M.
>
> I've decided to try to use check-function-bodies to account for the
> different possibilities:
> - v8-M vs v8.1-M via two different prefixes
> - code generation variants (-0?) via multiple regexps
>
> I've tested that the test now passes with --target-board=-march=armv8-m.main
> and --target-board=-march=armv8.1-m.main.
>
> I feel this a bit too much of a burden for the purpose, maybe there's
> a better way of handling all these alternatives (in particular,
> there's a lot of duplication since the expected code for the secure*
> functions is the same for v8-M and v8.1-M).
>
> OK?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Christophe
Hi Christophe,
This check-function-bodies functionality is pretty sweet, I assume the (
A | B ) checks for either of them?
If so that looks like a good improvement. Ideally we'd also check the
clearing for the v8.1-M cases, but that wasn't there before either and
they would need again splitting for -mfloat-abi=soft+softfp and
-mfloat-abi=hard.
So yeah this LGTM but you need approval from a port/global maintainer.
Cheers,
Andre
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [testsuite][arm] Fix cmse-15.c expected output
2020-04-07 10:31 ` Andre Vieira (lists)
@ 2020-04-07 10:54 ` Christophe Lyon
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Christophe Lyon @ 2020-04-07 10:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andre Vieira (lists); +Cc: gcc Patches
On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 12:31, Andre Vieira (lists)
<andre.simoesdiasvieira@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On 06/04/2020 16:12, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > While checking Martin's fix for PR ipa/94445, he made me realize that
> > the cmse-15.c testcase still fails at -Os because ICF means that we
> > generate
> > nonsecure2:
> > b nonsecure0
> >
> > which is OK, but does not match the currently expected
> > nonsecure2:
> > ...
> > bl __gnu_cmse_nonsecure_call
> >
> > (see https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-April/543190.html)
> >
> > The test has already different expectations for v8-M and v8.1-M.
> >
> > I've decided to try to use check-function-bodies to account for the
> > different possibilities:
> > - v8-M vs v8.1-M via two different prefixes
> > - code generation variants (-0?) via multiple regexps
> >
> > I've tested that the test now passes with --target-board=-march=armv8-m.main
> > and --target-board=-march=armv8.1-m.main.
> >
> > I feel this a bit too much of a burden for the purpose, maybe there's
> > a better way of handling all these alternatives (in particular,
> > there's a lot of duplication since the expected code for the secure*
> > functions is the same for v8-M and v8.1-M).
> >
> > OK?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Christophe
> Hi Christophe,
>
> This check-function-bodies functionality is pretty sweet, I assume the (
> A | B ) checks for either of them?
Yes.
> If so that looks like a good improvement. Ideally we'd also check the
> clearing for the v8.1-M cases, but that wasn't there before either and
> they would need again splitting for -mfloat-abi=soft+softfp and
> -mfloat-abi=hard.
>
Not sure what you mean?
The only nonsecure test with the (A|B) construct is:
+*Clear nonsecure2:
+*Clear ...
+*Clear (
+*Clear blxns r[0-3]
+*Clear |
+*Clear b nonsecure0
+*Clear )
So it does check the clearing (blxns), and 'b nonsecure0' is as valid
as the result of the test for nonsecure0.
>
> So yeah this LGTM but you need approval from a port/global maintainer.
>
Thanks
> Cheers,
> Andre
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [testsuite][arm] Fix cmse-15.c expected output
2020-04-06 15:12 [testsuite][arm] Fix cmse-15.c expected output Christophe Lyon
2020-04-07 10:31 ` Andre Vieira (lists)
@ 2020-04-08 9:47 ` Richard Sandiford
2020-04-08 18:29 ` Christophe Lyon
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Richard Sandiford @ 2020-04-08 9:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches
Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
> Hi,
>
> While checking Martin's fix for PR ipa/94445, he made me realize that
> the cmse-15.c testcase still fails at -Os because ICF means that we
> generate
> nonsecure2:
> b nonsecure0
>
> which is OK, but does not match the currently expected
> nonsecure2:
> ...
> bl __gnu_cmse_nonsecure_call
>
> (see https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-April/543190.html)
>
> The test has already different expectations for v8-M and v8.1-M.
>
> I've decided to try to use check-function-bodies to account for the
> different possibilities:
> - v8-M vs v8.1-M via two different prefixes
> - code generation variants (-0?) via multiple regexps
>
> I've tested that the test now passes with --target-board=-march=armv8-m.main
> and --target-board=-march=armv8.1-m.main.
>
> I feel this a bit too much of a burden for the purpose, maybe there's
> a better way of handling all these alternatives (in particular,
> there's a lot of duplication since the expected code for the secure*
> functions is the same for v8-M and v8.1-M).
FWIW, an alternative is to give multiple versions with the same prefix
and use { target ... } to select between them. E.g.:
/*
** foo: { target a }
** ...
*/
/*
** foo: { target { ! a } }
** ...
*/
Thanks,
Richard
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [testsuite][arm] Fix cmse-15.c expected output
2020-04-08 9:47 ` Richard Sandiford
@ 2020-04-08 18:29 ` Christophe Lyon
2020-04-09 10:57 ` Richard Sandiford
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Christophe Lyon @ 2020-04-08 18:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches, Christophe Lyon, Richard Sandiford
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2051 bytes --]
On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 11:48, Richard Sandiford
<richard.sandiford@arm.com> wrote:
>
> Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
> > Hi,
> >
> > While checking Martin's fix for PR ipa/94445, he made me realize that
> > the cmse-15.c testcase still fails at -Os because ICF means that we
> > generate
> > nonsecure2:
> > b nonsecure0
> >
> > which is OK, but does not match the currently expected
> > nonsecure2:
> > ...
> > bl __gnu_cmse_nonsecure_call
> >
> > (see https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-April/543190.html)
> >
> > The test has already different expectations for v8-M and v8.1-M.
> >
> > I've decided to try to use check-function-bodies to account for the
> > different possibilities:
> > - v8-M vs v8.1-M via two different prefixes
> > - code generation variants (-0?) via multiple regexps
> >
> > I've tested that the test now passes with --target-board=-march=armv8-m.main
> > and --target-board=-march=armv8.1-m.main.
> >
> > I feel this a bit too much of a burden for the purpose, maybe there's
> > a better way of handling all these alternatives (in particular,
> > there's a lot of duplication since the expected code for the secure*
> > functions is the same for v8-M and v8.1-M).
>
> FWIW, an alternative is to give multiple versions with the same prefix
> and use { target ... } to select between them. E.g.:
>
> /*
> ** foo: { target a }
> ** ...
> */
> /*
> ** foo: { target { ! a } }
> ** ...
> */
>
Ha indeed, that makes it simpler. Thanks for the example, I hadn't
fully understand how to use that scheme: I tried to add a third
alternative (different prefix) with no selector for cases where no
distinction was needed, but I realized that all alternatives need
their full matching description.
However, {target { ! a } } does not work as is, so the attached patch
uses a non-greedy regexp to avoid trying "! a }" instead of "target {
! a }"
If OK, maybe I should commit that as two separate patches?
Thanks
Christophe
> Thanks,
> Richard
[-- Attachment #2: cmse-15-function-bodies-v2.patch.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 4096 bytes --]
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-15.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-15.c
index 0e37b50..b0fefe5 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-15.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-15.c
@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options "-mcmse" } */
+/* ARMv8-M expectation with target { ! arm_cmse_clear_ok }. */
+/* ARMv8.1-M expectation with target arm_cmse_clear_ok. */
+/* { dg-final { check-function-bodies "**" "" "" } } */
int __attribute__ ((cmse_nonsecure_call)) (*ns_foo) (void);
int (*s_bar) (void);
@@ -11,67 +14,204 @@ typedef int s_bar_t (void);
typedef int __attribute__ ((cmse_nonsecure_call)) (* ns_foo_ptr) (void);
typedef int (*s_bar_ptr) (void);
+/*
+** nonsecure0: { target arm_cmse_clear_ok }
+** ...
+** blxns r[0-3]
+** ...
+*/
+/*
+** nonsecure0: { target { ! arm_cmse_clear_ok } }
+** ...
+** bl __gnu_cmse_nonsecure_call
+** ...
+*/
int nonsecure0 (ns_foo_t * ns_foo_p)
{
return ns_foo_p ();
}
+/*
+** nonsecure1: { target arm_cmse_clear_ok }
+** ...
+** blxns r[0-3]
+** ...
+*/
+/*
+** nonsecure1: { target { ! arm_cmse_clear_ok } }
+** ...
+** bl __gnu_cmse_nonsecure_call
+** ...
+*/
int nonsecure1 (ns_foo_t ** ns_foo_p)
{
return (*ns_foo_p) ();
}
+/*
+** nonsecure2: { target arm_cmse_clear_ok }
+** ...
+** (
+** blxns r[0-3]
+** |
+** b nonsecure0
+** )
+** ...
+*/
+/*
+** nonsecure2: { target { ! arm_cmse_clear_ok } }
+** ...
+** (
+** bl __gnu_cmse_nonsecure_call
+** |
+** b nonsecure0
+** )
+** ...
+*/
int nonsecure2 (ns_foo_ptr ns_foo_p)
{
return ns_foo_p ();
}
+
+/*
+** nonsecure3: { target arm_cmse_clear_ok }
+** ...
+** blxns r[0-3]
+** ...
+*/
+/*
+** nonsecure3: { target { ! arm_cmse_clear_ok } }
+** ...
+** bl __gnu_cmse_nonsecure_call
+** ...
+*/
int nonsecure3 (ns_foo_ptr * ns_foo_p)
{
return (*ns_foo_p) ();
}
+/*
+** secure0:
+** ...
+** (
+** bx r[0-3]
+** |
+** blx r[0-3]
+** )
+** ...
+*/
int secure0 (s_bar_t * s_bar_p)
{
return s_bar_p ();
}
+/*
+** secure1:
+** ...
+** (
+** bx r[0-3]
+** |
+** blx r[0-3]
+** )
+** ...
+*/
int secure1 (s_bar_t ** s_bar_p)
{
return (*s_bar_p) ();
}
+/*
+** secure2:
+** ...
+** (
+** bx r[0-3]
+** |
+** blx r[0-3]
+** |
+** b secure0
+** )
+** ...
+*/
int secure2 (s_bar_ptr s_bar_p)
{
return s_bar_p ();
}
+/*
+** secure3:
+** ...
+** (
+** bx r[0-3]
+** |
+** blx r[0-3]
+** )
+** ...
+*/
int secure3 (s_bar_ptr * s_bar_p)
{
return (*s_bar_p) ();
}
+/*
+** nonsecure4: { target arm_cmse_clear_ok }
+** ...
+** blxns r[0-3]
+** ...
+*/
+/*
+** nonsecure4: { target { ! arm_cmse_clear_ok } }
+** ...
+** bl __gnu_cmse_nonsecure_call
+** ...
+*/
int nonsecure4 (void)
{
return ns_foo ();
}
+/*
+** nonsecure5: { target arm_cmse_clear_ok }
+** ...
+** blxns r[0-3]
+** ...
+*/
+/*
+** nonsecure5: { target { ! arm_cmse_clear_ok } }
+** ...
+** bl __gnu_cmse_nonsecure_call
+** ...
+*/
int nonsecure5 (void)
{
return (*ns_foo2) ();
}
+/*
+** secure4:
+** ...
+** (
+** bx r[0-3]
+** |
+** blx r[0-3]
+** )
+** ...
+*/
int secure4 (void)
{
return s_bar ();
}
+/*
+** secure5:
+** ...
+** (
+** bx r[0-3]
+** |
+** blx r[0-3]
+** )
+** ...
+*/
int secure5 (void)
{
return (*s_bar2) ();
}
-
-/* ARMv8-M expectation. */
-/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "bl\\s+__gnu_cmse_nonsecure_call" 6 { target { ! arm_cmse_clear_ok } } } } */
-
-/* ARMv8.1-M expectation. */
-/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "blxns" 6 { target arm_cmse_clear_ok } } } */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/scanasm.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/scanasm.exp
index f7d2773..0098c3d 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/scanasm.exp
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/scanasm.exp
@@ -679,7 +679,7 @@ proc check-function-bodies { args } {
if { [string equal -length $prefix_len $line $prefix] } {
set line [string trim [string range $line $prefix_len end]]
if { !$in_function } {
- if { [regexp "^(.*\\S)\\s+{(.*)}\$" $line dummy \
+ if { [regexp "^(.*?\\S)\\s+{(.*)}\$" $line dummy \
line selector] } {
set selector [dg-process-target $selector]
} else {
[-- Attachment #3: cmse-15-function-bodies-v2.chglog.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 251 bytes --]
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2020-04-08 Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>
* gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-15.c: Use check-function-bodies.
* lib/scanasm.exp (check-function-bodies): Use non-greedy regexp
when extracting the target selector.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [testsuite][arm] Fix cmse-15.c expected output
2020-04-08 18:29 ` Christophe Lyon
@ 2020-04-09 10:57 ` Richard Sandiford
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Richard Sandiford @ 2020-04-09 10:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christophe Lyon; +Cc: Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches
Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> writes:
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 11:48, Richard Sandiford
> <richard.sandiford@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > While checking Martin's fix for PR ipa/94445, he made me realize that
>> > the cmse-15.c testcase still fails at -Os because ICF means that we
>> > generate
>> > nonsecure2:
>> > b nonsecure0
>> >
>> > which is OK, but does not match the currently expected
>> > nonsecure2:
>> > ...
>> > bl __gnu_cmse_nonsecure_call
>> >
>> > (see https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-April/543190.html)
>> >
>> > The test has already different expectations for v8-M and v8.1-M.
>> >
>> > I've decided to try to use check-function-bodies to account for the
>> > different possibilities:
>> > - v8-M vs v8.1-M via two different prefixes
>> > - code generation variants (-0?) via multiple regexps
>> >
>> > I've tested that the test now passes with --target-board=-march=armv8-m.main
>> > and --target-board=-march=armv8.1-m.main.
>> >
>> > I feel this a bit too much of a burden for the purpose, maybe there's
>> > a better way of handling all these alternatives (in particular,
>> > there's a lot of duplication since the expected code for the secure*
>> > functions is the same for v8-M and v8.1-M).
>>
>> FWIW, an alternative is to give multiple versions with the same prefix
>> and use { target ... } to select between them. E.g.:
>>
>> /*
>> ** foo: { target a }
>> ** ...
>> */
>> /*
>> ** foo: { target { ! a } }
>> ** ...
>> */
>>
>
> Ha indeed, that makes it simpler. Thanks for the example, I hadn't
> fully understand how to use that scheme: I tried to add a third
> alternative (different prefix) with no selector for cases where no
> distinction was needed, but I realized that all alternatives need
> their full matching description.
>
> However, {target { ! a } } does not work as is, so the attached patch
> uses a non-greedy regexp to avoid trying "! a }" instead of "target {
> ! a }"
Oops. This part is definitely OK, thanks.
> If OK, maybe I should commit that as two separate patches?
I don't really feel qualified to review the substance of the arm part
of the patch, but given Andre's LGTM for that in the earlier version,
a rubber-stamp OK for that too. I agree separate commits might be
better.
Thanks,
Richard
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-04-09 10:57 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-04-06 15:12 [testsuite][arm] Fix cmse-15.c expected output Christophe Lyon
2020-04-07 10:31 ` Andre Vieira (lists)
2020-04-07 10:54 ` Christophe Lyon
2020-04-08 9:47 ` Richard Sandiford
2020-04-08 18:29 ` Christophe Lyon
2020-04-09 10:57 ` Richard Sandiford
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).