On Jan 15, 2018, at 11:05 AM, Segher Boessenkool <seg...@kernel.crashing.org>
wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 11:34:06AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>> 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?
>
> These look fine, so sure. One nit:
>
>> --- 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" } */
>
> You could as well run all these tests on powerpc*-*-* as far as I see?
> Or does that -m error if there is no "safe" implementation for the current
> target?
Ah, yes, certainly. The compile-only tests can't, but the execution ones can.
I'll fix that in the next revision. Thanks!
Bill
>
>
> Segher
>
