Hi Jakub,
On 7 April 2015 at 17:51, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 11:01:59AM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>> 2015-04-07 Vladimir Makarov <vmaka...@redhat.com>
>>
>> PR target/65678
>> * lra-remat.c (do_remat): Process input and non-input insn
>> registers separately.
>
> Don't have a quick access to arm box right now (without waiting for it to be
> installed etc.), but using a cross-compiler I can at least reproduce
> that your patch changes also:
>
> /* PR target/65648 */
>
> int a = 0, *b = 0, c = 0;
> static int d = 0;
> short e = 1;
> static long long f = 0;
> long long *i = &f;
> unsigned char j = 0;
>
> __attribute__((noinline, noclone)) void
> foo (int x, int *y)
> {
> asm volatile ("" : : "r" (x), "r" (y) : "memory");
> }
>
> __attribute__((noinline, noclone)) void
> bar (const char *x, long long y)
> {
> asm volatile ("" : : "r" (x), "r" (&y) : "memory");
> if (y != 0)
> __builtin_abort ();
> }
>
> int
> main ()
> {
> int k = 0;
> b = &k;
> j = (!a) - (c <= e);
> *i = j;
> foo (a, &k);
> bar ("", f);
> return 0;
> }
>
> so, if anybody can confirm this testcase aborts with -march=armv6-m -mthumb
> -Os
> before Vlad's patch and doesn't abort afterwards, perhaps just sticking
> that into gcc.c-torture/execute/pr65648.c would be sufficient.
> Or, if people don't regularly test with -march=armv6-m -mthumb combination,
> perhaps put it into gcc.c-torture/execute/pr65648.c as is and
> add another gcc.target/arm/pr65648.c testcase that will #include this one,
> and use the right dg-options / dg-skip-if or dg-require-effective-target etc.
> for it to trigger. As the testcase uses uninitialized r3 in the wrong case,
> I wonder if the usual _start initializes r3 to some value that triggers the
> abort
> without the fix; if not, perhaps it needs to be in another function and the
> caller
> should somehow attempt to set l3 somehow (pass arguments to another function
> etc.)
> to a value that will trigger the abort.
validation is ongoing, but here is my attempt to add this testcase,
does it look correct (it's the first time I use that kind of include
in testsuite)
Cheers,
Yvan
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr65648.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr65648.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..88a2fc9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr65648.c
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+/* PR target/65648 */
+
+int a = 0, *b = 0, c = 0;
+static int d = 0;
+short e = 1;
+static long long f = 0;
+long long *i = &f;
+unsigned char j = 0;
+
+__attribute__((noinline, noclone)) void
+foo (int x, int *y)
+{
+ asm volatile ("" : : "r" (x), "r" (y) : "memory");
+}
+
+__attribute__((noinline, noclone)) void
+bar (const char *x, long long y)
+{
+ asm volatile ("" : : "r" (x), "r" (&y) : "memory");
+ if (y != 0)
+ __builtin_abort ();
+}
+
+int
+main ()
+{
+ int k = 0;
+ b = &k;
+ j = (!a) - (c <= e);
+ *i = j;
+ foo (a, &k);
+ bar ("", f);
+ return 0;
+}
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr65648.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr65648.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..215c6a9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr65648.c
@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-skip-if "avoid conflicting multilib options" { *-*-* } { "-march=*" }
{ "-march=armv6-m" } } */
+/* { dg-skip-if "avoid conflicting multilib options" { *-*-* } { "-marm" } {
"" } } */
+/* { dg-options "-mthumb -Os" } */
+/* { dg-add-options arm_arch_v6m } */
+
+#include "../../gcc.c-torture/execute/pr65648.c"
+
