Attached is an updated patch according to your comments. New tests are added to test ICF optimization in presence of nocf_check attribute.
Igor > -----Original Message----- > From: Tsimbalist, Igor V > Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 11:30 PM > To: Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Tsimbalist, Igor V > <igor.v.tsimbal...@intel.com> > Subject: RE: 0006-Part-6.-Add-x86-tests-for-Intel-CET-implementation > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches- > > ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Uros Bizjak > > Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 6:13 PM > > To: Tsimbalist, Igor V <igor.v.tsimbal...@intel.com> > > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > > Subject: Re: 0006-Part-6.-Add-x86-tests-for-Intel-CET-implementation > > > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Tsimbalist, Igor V > > <igor.v.tsimbal...@intel.com> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches- > > >> ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Uros Bizjak > > >> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 12:17 PM > > >> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > > >> Cc: Tsimbalist, Igor V <igor.v.tsimbal...@intel.com>; Tsimbalist, > > >> Igor V <igor.v.tsimbal...@intel.com> > > >> Subject: Re: > > >> 0006-Part-6.-Add-x86-tests-for-Intel-CET-implementation > > >> > > >> Hello! > > >> > > >> > gcc/testsuite/ > > >> > > > >> > * g++.dg/cet-notrack-1.C: New test. > > >> > * gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-1.c: Likewise. > > >> > * gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-10.c: Likewise. > > >> > * gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-2.c: Likewise. > > >> > * gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-3.c: Likewise. > > >> > * gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-4.c: Likewise. > > >> > * gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-5.c: Likewise. > > >> > * gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-6.c: Likewise. > > >> > * gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-7.c: Likewise. > > >> > * gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-8.c: Likewise. > > >> > * gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-9.c: Likewise. > > >> > * gcc.target/i386/cet-label.c: Likewise. > > >> > * gcc.target/i386/cet-notrack-1a.c: Likewise. > > >> > * gcc.target/i386/cet-notrack-1b.c: Likewise. > > >> > * gcc.target/i386/cet-notrack-2a.c: Likewise. > > >> > * gcc.target/i386/cet-notrack-2b.c: Likewise. > > >> > * gcc.target/i386/cet-notrack-3.c: Likewise. > > >> > * gcc.target/i386/cet-notrack-4a.c: Likewise. > > >> > * gcc.target/i386/cet-notrack-4b.c: Likewise. > > >> > * gcc.target/i386/cet-notrack-5a.c: Likewise. > > >> > * gcc.target/i386/cet-notrack-5b.c: Likewise. > > >> > * gcc.target/i386/cet-notrack-6a.c: Likewise. > > >> > * gcc.target/i386/cet-notrack-6b.c: Likewise. > > >> > * gcc.target/i386/cet-notrack-7.c: Likewise. > > >> > * gcc.target/i386/cet-property-1.c: Likewise. > > >> > * gcc.target/i386/cet-property-2.c: Likewise. > > >> > * gcc.target/i386/cet-rdssp-1.c: Likewise. > > >> > * gcc.target/i386/cet-sjlj-1.c: Likewise. > > >> > * gcc.target/i386/cet-sjlj-2.c: Likewise. > > >> > * gcc.target/i386/cet-sjlj-3.c: Likewise. > > >> > * gcc.target/i386/cet-switch-1.c: Likewise. > > >> > * gcc.target/i386/cet-switch-2.c: Likewise. > > >> > * lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_cet): New proc. > > >> > > >> A couple of questions: > > >> > > >> +/* { dg-do compile } */ > > >> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -mcet" } */ > > >> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "setssbsy" 2 } } */ > > >> + > > >> +#include <immintrin.h> > > >> + > > >> +void f1 (void) > > >> +{ > > >> + __builtin_ia32_setssbsy (); > > >> +} > > >> + > > >> +void f2 (void) > > >> +{ > > >> + _setssbsy (); > > >> +} > > >> > > >> Is there a reason that both, __builtin and intrinsic versions are > > >> tested in a couple of places? The intrinsic version is just a > > >> wrapper for __builtin, so IMO testing intrinsic version should be > enough. > > > No strong reason. Just to check that intrinsic names are recognized > > > and > > processed correctly. > > > The implementation could change and the test will catch inconsistency. > > > I would also assume a user will use intrinsics that's why I add intrinsic > check. > > Should I remove it? > > > > Actually, these __builtins are considered as implementation detail, > > and their use should be discouraged. They are deliberately not > > documented, and users should use intrinsic headers instead. That said, > > builtins won't change without a reason, since Ada needs them. > > > > It can happen that the test fails due to change of intrinsics, so I'd > > recommend to remove them. > Ok, I will remove intrinsic. > > > >> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/cet-rdssp-1.c > > >> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/cet-rdssp-1.c > > >> new file mode 100644 > > >> index 0000000..f9223a5 > > >> --- /dev/null > > >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/cet-rdssp-1.c > > >> @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ > > >> +/* { dg-do run { target cet } } */ > > >> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -finstrument-control-flow -mcet" } */ > > >> > > >> The "target cet" directive just checks that CET instructions can be > > compiled. > > >> The test will (probably?) fail on targets with binutils that can > > >> compile CET instructions, but the target itself doesn't support CET. > > >> If this is the case, then check header has to be introduced, so the > > >> test can be bypassed on targets without runtime support. > > > The test will not fail even if a target doesn't support CET as 'rdssp' > > > instruction is a NOP on such target and further usage of CET > > > instruction is bypassed. In this case the code > > > > > > + ssp = rdssp (ssp); > > > > > > Will keep ssp as 0. > > > > I assume that this is true also for other runtime tests, and this > > clears my concern about runtime failures with updated binutils. > Yes, that's true for other runtime tests. > > Igor > > > > > Uros.
0006-Add-x86-tests-for-Intel-CET-implementation.patch
Description: 0006-Add-x86-tests-for-Intel-CET-implementation.patch
