From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 127828 invoked by alias); 12 Dec 2018 09:42:59 -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 127794 invoked by uid 89); 12 Dec 2018 09:42:59 -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, HX-Envelope-From:sk:christo, eet?= X-HELO: mail-vk1-f179.google.com Received: from mail-vk1-f179.google.com (HELO mail-vk1-f179.google.com) (209.85.221.179) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 09:42:57 +0000 Received: by mail-vk1-f179.google.com with SMTP id d201so4085665vka.0 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 01:42:57 -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=oqzDA46hNEfNy388OySsUxH/vT6GLuiy8+QCc0WWDrg=; b=dBS/MKRkLbmgQq5vvz2SDeeyVxsuZ9tB7gfJdHBFjXx7qYukfmOguvJ7X1S02Kmu8w n6pOTNbH9nYrdYY6wiKzIApTgITIM2BctJ5XHZkr3J6ExHXB+4xVWyy+GJVxYDBthBaz 6tWBSQKnad3dmePQOcHqFshCoKBseF1n+OXYU= 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: <87woog9i32.fsf@arm.com> From: Christophe Lyon Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 09:42:00 -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/msg00774.txt.bz2 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 Ric= hard Sandiford wrote: > >> Dimitar Dimitrov writes: > >> > I have tested this fix on x86_64 host, and found no regression in th= e 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 > Thanks, > Richard