Hi Yuri, Sorry I missed this. Please cc: me to prevent that from happening.
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 05:42:00AM +0100, Yury Gribov wrote: > This patch fixes issues reported in > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81535 > > I removed call to g in pr79439.c because gcc was duplicating the basic > block with call depending on compiler flags (so scan-assembler-times > pattern wasn't reliable anymore). I also added alias to prevent > inlining introduced by recent PR56727 patch. > > I added Power-specific pattern in pr56727-2.c testcase and disabled > testing on Power in pr56727-1.c. > > Tested on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu. Ok for trunk? Did you also test this with -m32? And on powerpc64le-linux, the target the bug is reported against? The three ABIs are different. > PR target/81535 > * gcc.dg/pr56727-1.c: Do not check output on Power. > * gcc.dg/pr56727-2.c: Fix pattern for Power. Please name the actual target triple here, i.e. powerpc*-*-* . > * gcc.target/powerpc/pr79439.c: Prevent inlining. > diff -rupN gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr56727-1.c > gcc-81535/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr56727-1.c > --- gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr56727-1.c 2017-07-28 02:39:54.770046466 > +0000 > +++ gcc-81535/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr56727-1.c 2017-07-28 > 04:25:04.805648587 +0000 > @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ > /* { dg-do compile { target fpic } } */ > /* { dg-options "-O2 -fPIC" } */ > -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "@(PLT|plt)" { target i?86-*-* x86_64-*-* > powerpc*-*-* } } } */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "@(PLT|plt)" { target i?86-*-* x86_64-*-* > } } } */ > > #define define_func(type) \ > void f_ ## type (type b) { f_ ## type (0); } \ Is it correct that current GCC does not do the call via the PLT? > diff -rupN gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr56727-2.c > gcc-81535/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr56727-2.c > --- gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr56727-2.c 2017-07-28 02:39:54.770046466 > +0000 > +++ gcc-81535/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr56727-2.c 2017-07-28 > 04:21:19.195215187 +0000 > @@ -1,10 +1,10 @@ > /* { dg-do compile { target fpic } } */ > /* { dg-options "-O2 -fPIC" } */ > -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "@(PLT|plt)" { target i?86-*-* x86_64-*-* > powerpc*-*-linux* } } } */ > > __attribute__((noinline, noclone)) > void f (short b) > { > + __builtin_setjmp (0); /* Prevent tailcall */ > f (0); > } > This change is not mentioned in the changelog. > @@ -14,3 +14,5 @@ void h () > { > g (0); > } > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "@(PLT|plt)" { target i?86-*-* x86_64-*-* } } > } */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "bl f\n\[ \t\]*nop" { target > powerpc*-*-linux* } } } */ Is there a real reason there cannot be a tailcall here? You can write this as { scan-assembler {\mbl f\s+nop\M} } btw. > diff -rupN gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr79439.c > gcc-81535/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr79439.c > --- gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr79439.c 2017-07-28 > 02:39:55.750048426 +0000 > +++ gcc-81535/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr79439.c 2017-07-28 > 04:13:47.834177237 +0000 > @@ -8,22 +8,17 @@ > > int f (void); > > -void > -g (void) > -{ > -} > - > int > rec (int a) > { > int ret = 0; > if (a > 10 && f ()) > ret += rec (a - 1); > - g (); > return a + ret; > } > > +void rec_alias (short) __attribute__ ((alias ("rec"))); > + > /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mbl f\M} 1 } } */ > -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mbl g\M} 1 } } */ > /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mbl rec\M} 1 } } */ > -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mnop\M} 3 } } */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mnop\M} 2 } } */ The changelog says "prevent inlining", but you actually delete the code. Is that okay, wasn't the testcase actually testing for something here? Segher
