From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34F5F3858D28 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2023 12:48:25 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 34F5F3858D28 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1673959704; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=3UlDGBjIysjgbaVAttdXVj6U14tMuENv0+ZkIO9yvMY=; b=cXnM0zEgVfb8/YdjzDcMi9Fl0WS6W4RumfMaMVbPgXcg7+b1UpQLGOTr0MmEgKbijpkQja 4Z58xJGY8JQly81zSxfcboUjFgz2RGw6jKUsGj70yGY75fXfM1FytQZ3SJkH5Ii73qaJ2v cRhAL/+QG6oznDYfN6e9+Is4IE0z01Y= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-661-gKxMTUt8MiS14iZIJeugkw-1; Tue, 17 Jan 2023 07:48:23 -0500 X-MC-Unique: gKxMTUt8MiS14iZIJeugkw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AC2E101AA78; Tue, 17 Jan 2023 12:48:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.39.192.223]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C51CCC15BA0; Tue, 17 Jan 2023 12:48:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 30HCmJkG1473776 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 17 Jan 2023 13:48:20 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 30HCmI7Z1473775; Tue, 17 Jan 2023 13:48:18 +0100 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2023 13:48:18 +0100 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Christophe Lyon Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, richard.sandiford@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] aarch64: Fix bit-field alignment in param passing [PR105549] Message-ID: Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <20230111141806.258233-1-christophe.lyon@arm.com> <20230111141806.258233-2-christophe.lyon@arm.com> <82dd45f3-0630-4a48-85fa-e1f2b416c406@arm.com> <23ee6653-ffe7-f245-f8fc-aa560862634a@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <23ee6653-ffe7-f245-f8fc-aa560862634a@arm.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.8 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,KAM_SHORT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: 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