| Message ID | CAFULd4afnrbE0vzrBE6v24GJkjLv8hB13YzpFTvTPb=Coy5pZw@mail.gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello! > >> This patch defines TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE for Linux/x32. Tested on Linux/x32. >> OK for trunk? >> >> 2012-04-03 H.J. Lu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com> >> >> * config/host-linux.c (TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE): Defined to >> 0x60000000 for x32. > > I think we can simply check for __LP64__, without version check, as is > the case with SPARC and MIPS targets. > > Uros. > > Index: host-linux.c > =================================================================== > --- host-linux.c (revision 186141) > +++ host-linux.c (working copy) > @@ -68,8 +68,10 @@ > # define TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE 0x10000000000 > #elif defined(__ia64) > # define TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE 0x2000000100000000 > +#elif defined(__x86_64) && defined(__LP64__) > +# define TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE 0x1000000000 > #elif defined(__x86_64) > -# define TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE 0x1000000000 > +# define TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE 0x60000000 > #elif defined(__i386) > # define TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE 0x60000000 > #elif defined(__powerpc__) When you compile GCC 4.8 with GCC 3.2 on Linux/x86-64, __LP64__ won't be defined and TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE will be 0x60000000 instead of 0x1000000000.
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:47 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hello! >> >>> This patch defines TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE for Linux/x32. Tested on Linux/x32. >>> OK for trunk? >>> >>> 2012-04-03 H.J. Lu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com> >>> >>> * config/host-linux.c (TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE): Defined to >>> 0x60000000 for x32. >> >> I think we can simply check for __LP64__, without version check, as is >> the case with SPARC and MIPS targets. > > When you compile GCC 4.8 with GCC 3.2 on Linux/x86-64, > __LP64__ won't be defined and TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE > will be 0x60000000 instead of 0x1000000000. Looking at how other targets implement this check, I don't think that this is a problem at all. This issue only shows on a non-bootstrapped build. A full bootstrap will use correct address. Uros.
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote: > Looking at how other targets implement this check, I don't think that > this is a problem at all. This issue only shows on a non-bootstrapped > build. A full bootstrap will use correct address. The other place where it shows up is cross compilers but who is going to use a 3.2 compiler with GCC 4.8 anyways? -- Pinski
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote: >> Looking at how other targets implement this check, I don't think that >> this is a problem at all. This issue only shows on a non-bootstrapped >> build. A full bootstrap will use correct address. > > The other place where it shows up is cross compilers but who is going > to use a 3.2 compiler with GCC 4.8 anyways? > FWIW, I have no problem with checking __LP64__ only. I just want to mention this potential issue. Thanks.
Index: host-linux.c =================================================================== --- host-linux.c (revision 186141) +++ host-linux.c (working copy) @@ -68,8 +68,10 @@ # define TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE 0x10000000000 #elif defined(__ia64) # define TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE 0x2000000100000000 +#elif defined(__x86_64) && defined(__LP64__) +# define TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE 0x1000000000 #elif defined(__x86_64) -# define TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE 0x1000000000 +# define TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE 0x60000000 #elif defined(__i386) # define TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE 0x60000000 #elif defined(__powerpc__)