From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 134F2383F959
 for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2022 10:06:35 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 134F2383F959
Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14])
 by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D09CA165C;
 Tue, 21 Jun 2022 03:06:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (e121540-lin.manchester.arm.com [10.32.98.37])
 by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D3F6C3F534;
 Tue, 21 Jun 2022 03:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
To: Alexandre Oliva <oliva@adacore.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Alexandre Oliva <oliva@adacore.com>, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org,
 Richard Earnshaw <richard.earnshaw@arm.com>,
 Marcus Shawcroft <marcus.shawcroft@arm.com>,
 Kyrylo Tkachov <kyrylo.tkachov@arm.com>, richard.sandiford@arm.com
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Richard Earnshaw <richard.earnshaw@arm.com>,
 Marcus Shawcroft <marcus.shawcroft@arm.com>,
 Kyrylo Tkachov <kyrylo.tkachov@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] aarch64: testsuite: symbol-range compile only
References: <orbkumefo2.fsf@lxoliva.fsfla.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2022 11:06:32 +0100
In-Reply-To: <orbkumefo2.fsf@lxoliva.fsfla.org> (Alexandre Oliva's message of
 "Tue, 21 Jun 2022 02:42:05 -0300")
Message-ID: <mptbkum72l3.fsf@arm.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-57.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, GIT_PATCH_0,
 KAM_DMARC_NONE, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY, KAM_SHORT,
 SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, 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
X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-patches>,
 <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-patches>,
 <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2022 10:06:36 -0000

Alexandre Oliva <oliva@adacore.com> writes:
> On some of our embedded aarch64 targets, RAM size is too small for
> this test to fit.  It doesn't look like this test requires linking,
> and if it does, the -tiny version may presumably get most of the
> coverage without going overboard in target system requirements.

Linking is valuable here because one of the likely failure modes
is an out-of-range relocation.

Could we instead have a new target selector for whether the memory
map includes xGB of RAM?  E.g. maybe it could be along similar lines
to check_effective_target_simulator, reading an optional board
property that gives the RAM size.

Thanks,
Richard

>
> Regstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu, also tested with a cross to
> aarch64-rtems6.  Ok to install?
>
>
> for  gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
>
> 	* gcc.target/aarch64/symbol-range.c: Compile only.
> ---
>  gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/symbol-range.c |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/symbol-range.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/symbol-range.c
> index d8e82fa1b2829..cc68c19ca85d9 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/symbol-range.c
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/symbol-range.c
> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> -/* { dg-do link } */
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
>  /* { dg-options "-O3 -save-temps -mcmodel=small" } */
>  
>  char fixed_regs[0x80000000];