diff mbox series

V11 patch #13 of 15, Add test for -mcpu=future -fstack-protect-strong with large stacks

Message ID 20191221002930.GM28993@ibm-toto.the-meissners.org
State New
Headers show
Series V11 patch #13 of 15, Add test for -mcpu=future -fstack-protect-strong with large stacks | expand

Commit Message

Michael Meissner Dec. 21, 2019, 12:29 a.m. UTC 
This is patch V8 #6.  It makes sure the stack protect insns work when
-mcpu=future and -fstack-protector-strong are used together.  We discovered
this failure when we attempted to build GLIBC using -mcpu=future.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-12/msg00089.html

This test now passes when I run it as part of the test suite, can I check it
in to the trunk?

2019-12-20  Michael Meissner  <meissner@linux.ibm.com>

	* gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-stack-protect.c: New test to make sure
	-fstack-protect-strong works with prefixed addressing.
diff mbox series

Patch

Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-stack-protect.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-stack-protect.c	(revision 279324)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-stack-protect.c	(working copy)
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ 
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_prefixed_addr } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -mdejagnu-cpu=future -fstack-protector-strong" } */
+
+/* Test that we can handle large stack frames with -fstack-protector-strong and
+   prefixed addressing.  This was originally discovered in trying to build
+   glibc with -mcpu=future, and vfwprintf.c failed because it used
+   -fstack-protector-strong.  */
+
+extern long foo (char *);
+
+long
+bar (void)
+{
+  char buffer[0x20000];
+  return foo (buffer) + 1;
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler {\mpld\M}  } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler {\mpstd\M} } } */