Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] aarch64: Fix bit-field alignment in param passing [PR105549]

[Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 01:43:35PM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> As a follow-up to this, I ran the full testsuite with -fstack-protector-all
> and this results in lots of failures (~65000 in gcc.sum alone).

I guess that is way too much.

> Since you also mentioned -fstack-protector-strong, I ran the full testsuite
> with it, which results in more failures too but the difference is much
> smaller than with -fstack-protector=all (from 126 FAIL to 309)

But this could be doable by adding explicit -fno-stack-protector options
to test that can't handle those.

> For instance, I see many failures with -fstack-protector-strong in:
> gcc.target/aarch64/sve/pcs/
> It looks like you have them too, according to the logs I downloaded from
> your link above.
> 
> So is it worth adding -fno-stack-protector to my few new testcases?
> (I can, no problem, but just wondering why you appear to notice the problem
> with my new tests, and not with the ones in gcc.target/aarch64/sve/pcs/)

Because I mainly look for regressions (compare the test_summary
dumps against older gcc build); if something fails for years, it doesn't
show up in the regression diffs.

	Jakub