| Message ID | 20190817005056.15749-6-jose.marchesi@oracle.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | eBPF support for GCC | expand |
On 8/16/19 6:50 PM, Jose E. Marchesi wrote: > This patch makes the several effective target checks in > target-supports.exp to be aware of eBPF targets. > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > * lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_malloc): New > function. > (check_effective_target_trampolines): Adapt to eBPF. > (check_effective_target_stack_size): Likewise. > (dg-effective-target-value): Likewise. > (check_effective_target_indirect_jumps): Likewise. > (check_effective_target_nonlocal_goto): Likewise. > (check_effective_target_global_constructor): Likewise. > (check_effective_target_return_address): Likewise. > --- > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog | 11 +++++++++++ > gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp | 27 +++++++++++++++++++-------- > 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp > index 300d22a2d65..8b6168626d8 100644 > --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp > > @@ -546,7 +550,11 @@ proc check_effective_target_stack_size { } { > proc dg-effective-target-value { effective_target } { > if { "$effective_target" == "stack_size" } { > if [check_effective_target_stack_size] { > - return [target_info gcc,stack_size] > + if [istarget bpf-*-*] { > + return "512" > + } else { > + return [target_info gcc,stack_size] > + } > } > } Shouldn't the BPF stack size be defined be in your target files? The ChangeLog mentions check_effective_target_malloc, but I don't see it in the patch itself. Note that it needs to be documented in gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi as well if you are adding a new check_effective_target_<whatever> jeff
Hi Jose, On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 02:50:53AM +0200, Jose E. Marchesi wrote: > --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp > @@ -526,7 +526,8 @@ proc check_effective_target_trampolines { } { > || [istarget nvptx-*-*] > || [istarget hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.23] > || [istarget hppa64-hp-hpux11.23] > - || [istarget pru-*-*] } { > + || [istarget pru-*-*] > + || [istarget bpf-*-*] } { There is some whitespace damage here. > @@ -538,6 +539,9 @@ proc check_effective_target_stack_size { } { > if [target_info exists gcc,stack_size] { > return 1 > } > + if [istarget bpf-*-*] { > + return 1 > + } You should still set the proper stack size in your board file, so does this help you at all? > @@ -546,7 +550,11 @@ proc check_effective_target_stack_size { } { > proc dg-effective-target-value { effective_target } { > if { "$effective_target" == "stack_size" } { > if [check_effective_target_stack_size] { > - return [target_info gcc,stack_size] > + if [istarget bpf-*-*] { > + return "512" > + } else { > + return [target_info gcc,stack_size] > + } Yeah okay... Can't you directly override the gcc,stack_size setting, instead of doing that in every(?) place it is checked? Segher
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp > > @@ -546,7 +550,11 @@ proc check_effective_target_stack_size { } { > proc dg-effective-target-value { effective_target } { > if { "$effective_target" == "stack_size" } { > if [check_effective_target_stack_size] { > - return [target_info gcc,stack_size] > + if [istarget bpf-*-*] { > + return "512" > + } else { > + return [target_info gcc,stack_size] > + } > } > } Shouldn't the BPF stack size be defined be in your target files? Yes, definitely. I am adding a board description to dejagnu. Will set_board_info gcc,stack_size 512 there and remove this nasty overwrite in dg-effective-target-value. The ChangeLog mentions check_effective_target_malloc, but I don't see it in the patch itself. Note that it needs to be documented in gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi as well if you are adding a new check_effective_target_<whatever> Oh at some point I introduced a check_effective_target_malloc, then removed it. What you saw is a stale reference in the ChangeLog. Will get rid of it. Thanks!
Hi Seguer! Thanks for reviewing :) > @@ -538,6 +539,9 @@ proc check_effective_target_stack_size { } { > if [target_info exists gcc,stack_size] { > return 1 > } > + if [istarget bpf-*-*] { > + return 1 > + } You should still set the proper stack size in your board file, so does this help you at all? > @@ -546,7 +550,11 @@ proc check_effective_target_stack_size { } { > proc dg-effective-target-value { effective_target } { > if { "$effective_target" == "stack_size" } { > if [check_effective_target_stack_size] { > - return [target_info gcc,stack_size] > + if [istarget bpf-*-*] { > + return "512" > + } else { > + return [target_info gcc,stack_size] > + } Yeah okay... Can't you directly override the gcc,stack_size setting, instead of doing that in every(?) place it is checked? Yes I agree these things belong to the board configuration files, so I will remove that ad-hoc logic from the patch.
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp index 300d22a2d65..8b6168626d8 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp @@ -526,7 +526,8 @@ proc check_effective_target_trampolines { } { || [istarget nvptx-*-*] || [istarget hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.23] || [istarget hppa64-hp-hpux11.23] - || [istarget pru-*-*] } { + || [istarget pru-*-*] + || [istarget bpf-*-*] } { return 0; } return 1 @@ -538,6 +539,9 @@ proc check_effective_target_stack_size { } { if [target_info exists gcc,stack_size] { return 1 } + if [istarget bpf-*-*] { + return 1 + } return 0 } @@ -546,7 +550,11 @@ proc check_effective_target_stack_size { } { proc dg-effective-target-value { effective_target } { if { "$effective_target" == "stack_size" } { if [check_effective_target_stack_size] { - return [target_info gcc,stack_size] + if [istarget bpf-*-*] { + return "512" + } else { + return [target_info gcc,stack_size] + } } } @@ -781,7 +789,7 @@ proc add_options_for_tls { flags } { # Return 1 if indirect jumps are supported, 0 otherwise. proc check_effective_target_indirect_jumps {} { - if { [istarget nvptx-*-*] } { + if { [istarget nvptx-*-*] || [istarget bpf-*-*] } { return 0 } return 1 @@ -790,7 +798,7 @@ proc check_effective_target_indirect_jumps {} { # Return 1 if nonlocal goto is supported, 0 otherwise. proc check_effective_target_nonlocal_goto {} { - if { [istarget nvptx-*-*] } { + if { [istarget nvptx-*-*] || [istarget bpf-*-*] } { return 0 } return 1 @@ -799,10 +807,9 @@ proc check_effective_target_nonlocal_goto {} { # Return 1 if global constructors are supported, 0 otherwise. proc check_effective_target_global_constructor {} { - if { [istarget nvptx-*-*] } { - return 0 - } - if { [istarget amdgcn-*-*] } { + if { [istarget nvptx-*-*] + || [istarget amdgcn-*-*] + || [istarget bpf-*-*] } { return 0 } return 1 @@ -825,6 +832,10 @@ proc check_effective_target_return_address {} { if { [istarget nvptx-*-*] } { return 0 } + # No notion of return address in eBPF. + if { [istarget bpf-*-*] } { + return 0 + } # It could be supported on amdgcn, but isn't yet. if { [istarget amdgcn*-*-*] } { return 0