From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf1-x435.google.com (mail-pf1-x435.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::435]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44E933858D37 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2023 15:20:27 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 44E933858D37 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-pf1-x435.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-63b8b19901fso112717b3a.3 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2023 08:20:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1682695226; x=1685287226; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=BYry6oA3BF092j0CMGDPzlcZUI9Jhtz9o/7V65egLio=; b=iFS2MVn7zYpMlFzu/USeuN0xYbLsfGFEvC77tQRZf5Nvat6DI2MtXoo5rBI/SbQ+Zp MF20vpb2SoA76iU/KPfitwqgbxwXwBf0d4cV6hX5QOy1g4Gu6HzvbmqJxvlwv7I8TfGx dRtvlCzo/KeRPR1JoSxEURBmN7NUUPmYEmXjcBXzefQXKdHGg5A5bOra8jK4++NWsXnd 26q69fVsBzLO3FF5f2lLI1HdU7mXgJrz1Fe7nKq8kZ3SZ595CVn0x6q3g4L8YWU8915Z 1CkS0LnVujNYrYKubnbMVg1Tpqxz+VNacYRHB1atpXoOq9QE/kMcYbAqAKwxiG09lDuO ZnBA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1682695226; x=1685287226; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=BYry6oA3BF092j0CMGDPzlcZUI9Jhtz9o/7V65egLio=; b=BOI2B35gVAaMc1JFS8GhNOBnKQguRB/qrQA3MgYORpdnez/7W8Ywn7QybaA+/Jbp8I s0qI2TtIlYMTZAHVUnq2MRbE6c1m+1BoOKcEDeh26lLprC9t5Ogb4H1dK/gkvyLBFvy1 RvDxswc0yCF9Y5isM78TPKm+2i96u/KcR8c2eYQtfbR1Z/479NXMJPJtxAhv3OlQUvgz +hf5DnRtRCl+IVQj608gHFYTGY8KlOLq9ac0tMQuHk9J1Ja31xk3SzCQGeaa03B4PTid zQejpJ1ogWNMEOEdmpL3JH7VT8XK8pjjPohqP6mOT7m9epWQJiWNJQxGC2Bl1qc/PgIj gaUQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDwakgB4lumo8No/xmsgnnJ0UeFvU2RV8TKra+WAHmM//Mjc2GS1 F9CVzMUGwG/hg3fK6Y1KDgs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ4DtBOeAB3ZD2XsYvnmGDXYeSSXHIRrnQvDsTnY7vQy+sS1KWB+r10JSiMCIGFHtMLoQWwPbg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a20:a699:b0:f8:1101:c074 with SMTP id ba25-20020a056a20a69900b000f81101c074mr6044252pzb.54.1682695226079; Fri, 28 Apr 2023 08:20:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2601:681:8600:13d0::99f? ([2601:681:8600:13d0::99f]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 189-20020a6304c6000000b00513cc8c9597sm13182641pge.10.2023.04.28.08.20.24 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 28 Apr 2023 08:20:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 09:20:24 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.9.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH] testsuite: adjust NOP expectations for RISC-V Content-Language: en-US To: Jan Beulich , Palmer Dabbelt Cc: ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE, mikestump@comcast.net, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org References: From: Jeff Law In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE 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 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. jeff