From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A729D385841C for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2022 16:14:38 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org A729D385841C Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=us.ibm.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=us.ibm.com Received: from pps.filterd (m0098420.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 2AIFcn7R001268; Fri, 18 Nov 2022 16:14:38 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : subject : from : to : cc : date : in-reply-to : references : content-type : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=WrPxUvD+O46IVobW/4ITgnlFy9WR1y5w8C7lP1YuFEY=; b=Xzm1PQxK8zQoR/+NhvcXz05L2E+JfnHKsKgTsO9lRIxJc1afiXeRuSBceznD4B2OKNW+ U8Sxus3tgY1QlW36tLAiJO7HXH+Bx8xOp7FdF8jy3OM1rmtvM4tOnwQCQJPMB6oQbUbd eyiNmNZlng9aiOjMJoqwPGZA3pkNCQY0iDWVcxpsJS4REJ51LE2rxOikH9kYE4sMGWZb VvHL+DUOdQlNdxl4cr+CzH9uuPF0OotcHvBuRwTA2d6yPAvxr3Zf1UkHplqbbh6Ogq9n cMRFdy27SOMQIj8Whk58wLchB1c9ljDP9xUd6mG83f6xCaopHmEhYQ6UsSI3xASWE9gr yQ== Received: from ppma04wdc.us.ibm.com (1a.90.2fa9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.47.144.26]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3kxcvhgtvf-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 18 Nov 2022 16:14:38 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04wdc.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04wdc.us.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 2AIG6lOQ023152; Fri, 18 Nov 2022 16:14:37 GMT Received: from b01cxnp23032.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp23032.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.27]) by ppma04wdc.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3kt34a8jg0-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 18 Nov 2022 16:14:37 +0000 Received: from smtpav02.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com ([9.208.128.114]) by b01cxnp23032.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 2AIGEasE3670586 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 18 Nov 2022 16:14:37 GMT Received: from smtpav02.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6702458059; Fri, 18 Nov 2022 16:14:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav02.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4C445805B; Fri, 18 Nov 2022 16:14:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from li-e362e14c-2378-11b2-a85c-87d605f3c641.ibm.com (unknown [9.163.52.7]) by smtpav02.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Nov 2022 16:14:35 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <50afce79affca0cda4f3e1b27989b92044b9f940.camel@us.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] PowerPC, fix gdb.base/retval-large-struct.exp From: Carl Love To: Ulrich Weigand , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , "tdevries@suse.de" Cc: "will_schmidt@vnet.ibm.com" Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2022 08:14:35 -0800 In-Reply-To: References: <71926c391f43cee2051ea0c9b449ec0aecc847ec.camel@us.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5 (3.28.5-18.el8) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: tISqezYyQJ2f-A6dSRYTtacCZpJqX3R4 X-Proofpoint-GUID: tISqezYyQJ2f-A6dSRYTtacCZpJqX3R4 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.219,Aquarius:18.0.895,Hydra:6.0.545,FMLib:17.11.122.1 definitions=2022-11-18_04,2022-11-18_01,2022-06-22_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 bulkscore=0 mlxlogscore=898 suspectscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 malwarescore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2210170000 definitions=main-2211180093 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,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: Tom, Ulrich: On Fri, 2022-11-18 at 16:04 +0000, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Tom de Vries wrote: > > > AFAIU, needing -fvar-tracking is specific to powerpc, so we should > > limit > > it's impact to that target. > > > > And it's a gcc compiler flag, so perhaps we should limit it's > > impact to > > that as well. > > No, it's not really powerpc specific - the same mechanism can be > used on many other platforms with an ABI that uses a return buffer > address that is not preserved. (E.g. we're currently looking into > enabling it on s390x.) > > And given that the flag is harmless if it's available (which the > test verifies), I think it makes sense to just always enable it. > > (In fact, I think the compiler should really provide DWARF entry > value records -for simple cases- always, even if -fvar-tracking > is not enabled. That would make the problem go away.) I have run the testcase on Intel X86-64 and it does run successfully there. Carl