| Message ID | CA+4CFy4OWmDqS=mK1VtJsGGCZLA0sNCfsG7Ldyu9bhh=So+hCA@mail.gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Wei Mi <wmi@google.com> writes: > Thanks for trying the testcase. rtl scanning will be slightly better > than assembly scanning. So how about this one? This one works fine for me. Thanks. Rainer
Can I checkin this testcase fix? Thanks, Wei. On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Rainer Orth <ro@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote: > Wei Mi <wmi@google.com> writes: > >> Thanks for trying the testcase. rtl scanning will be slightly better >> than assembly scanning. So how about this one? > > This one works fine for me. > > Thanks. > Rainer > > -- > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University
Wei Mi <wmi@google.com> writes:
> Can I checkin this testcase fix?
I think this is for Uros to approve.
Rainer
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Wei Mi <wmi@google.com> wrote: >>> Here is a patch for the test. It contains two changes: >>> 1. For emutls, there will be an explicit call generated at expand >>> pass, and no stack adjustment is needed. So add /* { >>> dg-require-effective-target tls_native } */ in the test. >>> 2. Replace cfi_def_cfa_offset with insn sequence check. >>> >>> Is it ok? >> >> No, the test FAILs for 32-bit i386-pc-solaris2.11 with Sun as/ld: >> >> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr58066.c scan-assembler sub[^\r\n]*8[^\r\n]*sp.*call[^\r\n]*__tls_get_addr.*sub[^\r\n]*8[^\r\n]*sp.*call[^\r\n]*__tls_get_addr >> >> The TLS code sequence is different here: >> >> subl $8, %esp >> leal ccc1@tlsgd(,%ebx,1), %eax >> call ccc1@tlsgdplt >> >> I fear this insn scanning is going to be extremely fragile. >> >> Rainer > > Thanks for trying the testcase. rtl scanning will be slightly better > than assembly scanning. So how about this one? This is OK, with a small effective-target addition, as shown below. Thanks, Uros. > Index: testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr58066.c > =================================================================== > --- testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr58066.c (revision 210222) > +++ testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr58066.c (working copy) > @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ > /* { dg-do compile } */ > -/* { dg-options "-fPIC -O2" } */ > +/* { dg-require-effective-target tls_native } */ Please also add /* { dg-require-effective-target fpic } */ > +/* { dg-options "-fPIC -fomit-frame-pointer -O2 -fdump-rtl-final" } */ > > /* Check whether the stack frame starting addresses of tls expanded calls > in foo and goo are 16bytes aligned. */ > @@ -15,4 +16,6 @@ void* goo() > return &ccc2; > } > > -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times ".cfi_def_cfa_offset 16" 2 } } */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump "Function > foo.*set\[^\r\n\]*sp\\)\[\r\n\]\[^\r\n\]*plus\[^\r\n\]*sp\\)\[\r\n\]\[^\r\n\]*const_int > -8.*UNSPEC_TLS.*Function goo" "final" } } */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump "Function > goo.*set\[^\r\n\]*sp\\)\[\r\n\]\[^\r\n\]*plus\[^\r\n\]*sp\\)\[\r\n\]\[^\r\n\]*const_int > -8.*UNSPEC_TLS" "final" } } */ > +/* { dg-final { cleanup-rtl-dump "final" } } */
Index: testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr58066.c =================================================================== --- testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr58066.c (revision 210222) +++ testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr58066.c (working copy) @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ /* { dg-do compile } */ -/* { dg-options "-fPIC -O2" } */ +/* { dg-require-effective-target tls_native } */ +/* { dg-options "-fPIC -fomit-frame-pointer -O2 -fdump-rtl-final" } */ /* Check whether the stack frame starting addresses of tls expanded calls in foo and goo are 16bytes aligned. */ @@ -15,4 +16,6 @@ void* goo() return &ccc2; } -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times ".cfi_def_cfa_offset 16" 2 } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump "Function foo.*set\[^\r\n\]*sp\\)\[\r\n\]\[^\r\n\]*plus\[^\r\n\]*sp\\)\[\r\n\]\[^\r\n\]*const_int -8.*UNSPEC_TLS.*Function goo" "final" } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump "Function