Hi,
It was pointed out off-list that I should add some executable tests for
the new -msafe-indirect-jumps implementation. This patch adds three
such tests to demonstrate correct behavior.
Tested on powerpc64-linux-gnu and powerpc64le-linux-gnu. Are these tests
okay for trunk after the other patch is approved?
Thanks,
Bill
2018-01-14 Bill Schmidt <wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
* gcc.target/powerpc/safe-indirect-jump-4.c: New file.
* gcc.target/powerpc/safe-indirect-jump-5.c: New file.
* gcc.target/powerpc/safe-indirect-jump-6.c: New file.
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/safe-indirect-jump-4.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/safe-indirect-jump-4.c (nonexistent)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/safe-indirect-jump-4.c (working copy)
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+/* { dg-do run { target { powerpc64le-*-* } } } */
+/* { dg-additional-options "-msafe-indirect-jumps" } */
+
+/* Test for deliberate misprediction of indirect calls for ELFv2. */
+
+int (*f)();
+
+int __attribute__((noinline)) bar ()
+{
+ return (*f) ();
+}
+
+int g ()
+{
+ return 26;
+}
+
+int main ()
+{
+ f = &g;
+ if (bar () != 26)
+ __builtin_abort ();
+
+ return 0;
+}
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/safe-indirect-jump-5.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/safe-indirect-jump-5.c (nonexistent)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/safe-indirect-jump-5.c (working copy)
@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+/* { dg-do run { target { powerpc*-*-* } } } */
+/* { dg-additional-options "-msafe-indirect-jumps -Wno-pedantic" } */
+
+/* Test for deliberate misprediction of computed goto. */
+
+int __attribute__((noinline)) bar (int i)
+{
+ return 1960 + i;
+}
+
+int __attribute__((noinline)) baz (int i)
+{
+ return i * i;
+}
+
+int __attribute__((noinline)) spaz (int i)
+{
+ return i + 1;
+}
+
+int foo (int x)
+{
+ static void *labptr[] = { &&lab0, &&lab1, &&lab2 };
+
+ if (x < 0 || x > 2)
+ return -1;
+
+ goto *labptr[x];
+
+ lab0:
+ return bar (x);
+
+ lab1:
+ return baz (x) + 1;
+
+ lab2:
+ return spaz (x) / 2;
+}
+
+int main ()
+{
+ if (foo (0) != 1960)
+ __builtin_abort ();
+
+ if (foo (1) != 2)
+ __builtin_abort ();
+
+ if (foo (2) != 1)
+ __builtin_abort ();
+
+ if (foo (3) != -1)
+ __builtin_abort ();
+
+ return 0;
+}
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/safe-indirect-jump-6.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/safe-indirect-jump-6.c (nonexistent)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/safe-indirect-jump-6.c (working copy)
@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+/* { dg-do run { target { powerpc*-*-* } } } */
+/* { dg-additional-options "-msafe-indirect-jumps" } */
+
+/* Test for deliberate misprediction of jump tables. */
+
+void __attribute__((noinline)) bar ()
+{
+}
+
+int foo (int x)
+{
+ int a;
+
+ switch (x)
+ {
+ default:
+ a = -1;
+ break;
+ case 0:
+ a = x * x + 3;
+ break;
+ case 1:
+ a = x + 1;
+ break;
+ case 2:
+ a = x + x;
+ break;
+ case 3:
+ a = x << 3;
+ break;
+ case 4:
+ a = x >> 1;
+ break;
+ case 5:
+ a = x;
+ break;
+ case 6:
+ a = 0;
+ break;
+ case 7:
+ a = x * x + x;
+ break;
+ }
+
+ bar();
+
+ return a;
+}
+
+int main ()
+{
+ if (foo (0) != 3)
+ __builtin_abort ();
+
+ if (foo (1) != 2)
+ __builtin_abort ();
+
+ if (foo (2) != 4)
+ __builtin_abort ();
+
+ if (foo (3) != 24)
+ __builtin_abort ();
+
+ if (foo (4) != 2)
+ __builtin_abort ();
+
+ if (foo (5) != 5)
+ __builtin_abort ();
+
+ if (foo (6) != 0)
+ __builtin_abort ();
+
+ if (foo (7) != 56)
+ __builtin_abort ();
+
+ if (foo (8) != -1)
+ __builtin_abort ();
+
+ return 0;
+}
