Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Tsimbalist, Igor V
> <igor.v.tsimbalist@intel.com> wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Uros Bizjak [mailto:ubizjak@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 10:02 AM
>>> To: Tsimbalist, Igor V <igor.v.tsimbalist@intel.com>
>>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>>> Subject: Re: 0006-Part-6.-Add-x86-tests-for-Intel-CET-implementation
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:54 PM, Tsimbalist, Igor V
>>> <igor.v.tsimbalist@intel.com> wrote:
>>> > Attached is an updated patch according to your comments. New tests are
>>> > added to test ICF optimization in presence of nocf_check attribute.
>>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fcf-protection-2.c
>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fcf-protection-2.c
>>> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
>>>  /* { dg-do compile } */
>>>  /* { dg-options "-fcf-protection=branch" } */
>>> -/* { dg-error "'-fcf-protection=branch' is not supported for this
>>> target" "" {
>>> target { "i?86-*-* x86_64-*-*" } } 0 } */
>>> +/* { dg-error "'-fcf-protection=branch' requires CET support on this
>>> target. Use -mcet or one of -mibt, -mshstk options to enable CET" "" {
>>> target {
>>> "i?86-*-* x86_64-*-*" } } 0 } */
>>>
>>> Checking for "-fcf-protection=branch' requires CET support on this target"
>>> should be enough. No need to check the whole message here and in other
>>> tests.
>>
>> Fixed as you suggested. Also shortened the checking string for ignoring the
>> attribute in attr-nocf-check-1.c and attr-nocf-check-3.c.
>>
>>>  /* { dg-error "'-fcf-protection=branch' is not supported for this
>>> target" "" {
>>> target { ! "i?86-*-* x86_64-*-*" } } 0 } */ diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-
>>> common/fcf-protection-3.c
>>> b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fcf-protection-3.c
>>>
>>>
>>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fcf-protection-4.c
>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fcf-protection-4.c
>>> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
>>>  /* { dg-do compile } */
>>>  /* { dg-options "-fcf-protection=none" } */
>>> -/* { dg-bogus "'-fcf-protection=none' is not supported for this target" "" {
>>> target { "i?86-*-* x86_64-*-*" } } 0 } */
>>> +/* { dg-bogus "'-fcf-protection=none' res CET support on this target.
>>> Use -mcet or one of -mibt, -mshstk options to enable CET" "" { target {
>>> "i?86-
>>> *-* x86_64-*-*" } } 0 } */
>>>  /* { dg-bogus "'-fcf-protection=none' is not supported for this target" "" {
>>> target { ! "i?86-*-* x86_64-*-*" } } 0 } */ diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-
>>> common/fcf-protection-5.c
>>> b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fcf-protection-5.c
>>>
>>> The above test checks for bogus messages? -fcf-protection=none option
>>> should not generate any messages. So, the test should check that -fcf-
>>> protection=none doesn't generate any error. (And, there is a typo in the
>>> message, /s/res/requires.)
>>
>> The gcc documentation says about dg-bogus
>>
>> This DejaGnu directive appears on a source line that should not get a message
>> matching regexp...
>>
>> I decided to use dg-bogus to check the absence of the error. Now I
>> removed both
>> lines as any additional messages should be caught as an extra
>> messages. Actually
>> I will update the fcf-protection-4.c test in the generic patch.
>>
>> Updated patch is attached.
>
> OK.

The new cet effective-target keyword needs documenting in
sourcebuild.texi, as usual.

Besides, the gcc.target/i386/cet-sjlj-3.c test FAILs on Solaris/x86 and
FreeBSD:

FAIL: gcc.target/i386/cet-sjlj-3.c scan-assembler-times call\\t_setjmp 1 (found 0 times)

On Solaris, this happens because USER_LABEL_PREFIX is empty.  The
following patch accounts for that.

Tested with the appropriate runtest invocation on i386-pc-solaris2.11
and x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.  Ok for mainline?

	Rainer

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University


2017-10-24  Rainer Orth  <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>

	* gcc.target/i386/cet-sjlj-3.c: Allow for emtpy user label prefix
	in setjmp call.