On 27 June 2017 at 13:14, Yvan Roux <yvan.r...@linaro.org> wrote: > Hi Wilco > > On 27 June 2017 at 12:53, Wilco Dijkstra <wilco.dijks...@arm.com> wrote: >> Hi Yvan, >> >>> Here is the backport of Wilco's patch (r237607) along with Kyrill's >>> one (r244643, which removed the remaining occurences of >>> aarch64_nopcrelative_literal_loads). To fix the issue the original >>> patch has to be modified, to keep aarch64_pcrelative_literal_loads >>> test for large models in aarch64_classify_symbol. >> >> The patch looks good to me, however I can't approve it. > > ok thanks for the review. > >>> On trunk and gcc-7-branch the :lo12: relocations are not generated >>> because of Wilco's fix for pr78733 (r243456 and 243486), but my >>> understanding is that the bug is still present since compiling >>> gcc.target/aarch64/pr78733.c with -mcmodel=large brings back the >>> :lo12: relocations (I'll submit a patch to add the test back if my >>> understanding is correct). >> >> You're right, eventhough -mpc-relative-literal-loads doesn't make much sense >> in the large memory model, it seems best to keep the option orthogonal to >> enable the workaround. I've prepared a patch to fix this on trunk/GCC7. >> It also adds a test which we should add to your changes to GCC6 too. > > ok, I think it is what kugan's proposed earlier today in: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-06/msg01967.html > > I agree that -mpc-relative-literal-loads and large memory model > doesn't make much sense, now it is what is used in kernel build > system, but if you handle that in a bigger fix already, that's awesome > :)
ping? https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-06/msg01708.html > Thanks > Yvan > >> Wilco
