| Message ID | CAMe9rOqU0pCXBSqTgNOTURADBGQ=7aFdX54t3yWnnM=fv58_Dw@mail.gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 8:57 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 3:28 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@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. >>>> >>> >>> Here is a different patch. It checks sizeof (void *) for those hosts >>> where it is appropriate. Does it look OK? >> >> Looks OK to me, but you need a GWP reviewer to OK this change now... >> > > Here is the patch with ChangeLog. Tested on Linux/x32. Jakub, > is this OK for trunk? > Hi Richard, Is this patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-04/msg00303.html OK for trunk? Thanks.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:41 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 8:57 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 3:28 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Here is a different patch. It checks sizeof (void *) for those hosts >>>> where it is appropriate. Does it look OK? >>> >>> Looks OK to me, but you need a GWP reviewer to OK this change now... >>> >> >> Here is the patch with ChangeLog. Tested on Linux/x32. Jakub, >> is this OK for trunk? >> > > Hi Richard, > > Is this patch: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-04/msg00303.html > > OK for trunk? > I checked in this patch to check __x86_64 and __LP64__. I will submit a followup patch to simplify it later. Thanks.
2012-04-03 H.J. Lu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com> * config/host-linux.c (TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE): Check pointer size for alpha, arm, i386 and x86-64. diff --git a/gcc/config/host-linux.c b/gcc/config/host-linux.c index 94b7a0b..93c513e 100644 --- a/gcc/config/host-linux.c +++ b/gcc/config/host-linux.c @@ -64,14 +64,12 @@ /* For various ports, try to guess a fixed spot in the vm space that's probably free. */ -#if defined(__alpha) -# define TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE 0x10000000000 +#if defined(__alpha) || defined(__ARM_EABI__) || defined(__i386) \ + || defined(__x86_64) +# define TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE \ + (sizeof (void *) == 8 ? 0x1000000000 : 0x60000000) #elif defined(__ia64) # define TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE 0x2000000100000000 -#elif defined(__x86_64) -# define TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE 0x1000000000 -#elif defined(__i386) -# define TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE 0x60000000 #elif defined(__powerpc__) # define TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE 0x60000000 #elif defined(__s390x__) @@ -84,8 +82,6 @@ # define TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE 0x60000000 #elif defined(__mc68000__) # define TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE 0x40000000 -#elif defined(__ARM_EABI__) -# define TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE 0x60000000 #elif defined(__mips__) && defined(__LP64__) # define TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE 0x8000000000 #elif defined(__mips__)