Re: [PATCH] testsuite: adjust NOP expectations for RISC-V

[Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>]

On 4/28/23 10:43, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 08:20:24 PDT (-0700), jeffreyalaw@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 4/27/23 01:39, Jan Beulich via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> On 26.04.2023 17:45, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 08:26:26 PDT (-0700), gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/25/23 08:50, Jan Beulich via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>>>>> RISC-V will emit ".option nopic" when -fno-pie is in effect, which
>>>>>> matches the generic pattern. Just like done for Alpha, special-case
>>>>>> RISC-V.
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> A couple more targets look to be affected as well, simply because 
>>>>>> their
>>>>>> "no-operation" insn doesn't match the expectation. With the 
>>>>>> apparently
>>>>>> necessary further special casing I then also question the presence of
>>>>>> "SWYM" in the generic pattern.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An alternative here might be to use dg-additional-options to add e.g.
>>>>>> -fpie. I don't think I know all possible implications of doing so,
>>>>>> though.
>>>>
>>>> Looks like there's already a no-pie for SPARC.  Nothing's jumping 
>>>> out as
>>>> to why, but I'm not super familiar with `-fpatchable-function-entry`.
>>>>
>>>>> I think this is fine.  Go ahead and install it.
>>>>
>>>> We run into this sort of thing somewhat frequently.  Maybe we want a DG
>>>> matcher that avoids matching assembler directives?  Or maybe even a
>>>> "scan-assembler-nop-times" type thing, given that different ports have
>>>> different names for the instruction?
>>>>
>>>> I don't see reason to block fixing the test on something bigger, 
>>>> though,
>>>> so seems fine for trunk.  Presumably we'd want to backport this as 
>>>> well?
>>>
>>> Perhaps, but in order to do so I'd need to be given the respective okay.
>> Given how often we're trying to avoid matching directives, particularly
>> directives which refer to filenames this sounds like a good idea to me.
> 
> I think the ask there was for an OK to backport this fix to 13?  So I 
> guess more concretely:
> 
> OK for trunk.  OK to backport for 13?
Sure, OK for backporting as well.
jeff