On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 6:09 AM Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:25 AM Iain Sandoe <i...@sandoe.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > These changes are OK as long as they don't regress HJ's x86_64 and
> > > i686 autotesters.
> >
> > Applied as r271544, will look out for such fails.
> >
> > > Double points if they also fix -fpic failures. ;)
> >
> > make check-gcc-c RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix/-fpic\{-m32,-m64\}
> > i386.exp=fuse-caller-save*”
> >
> > Test run by iains on Thu May 23 07:20:03 2019
> > Native configuration is x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
> >
> > === gcc tests ===
> >
> > Running target unix/-fpic/-m32
> >
> > === gcc Summary for unix/-fpic/-m32 ===
> >
> > # of expected passes 18
> >
> > === gcc Summary for unix/-fpic/-m64 ===
> >
> > # of expected passes 18
> >
> > ( but, as noted above, these tests are not run ‘-fpic’ on Linux by default,
> > although in this case a fail on Darwin
> > would be a fair indication of problems )
>
> There are periodic results for i686/-fpic [1], x32/-fpic [2] and
> x86_64/-fpic/{,-mcmodel=medium} [3] targets avaliable in
> gcc-testresults@ ML. I think we have quite good coverage of -fpic for
> x86 targets.
>
> BTW: HJ, for some reason -fpic/-mcmodel=large does not work in [3].
>
> [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2019-05/msg02599.html
> [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2019-05/msg02577.html
> [3] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2019-05/msg02571.html
Since large PIC model has very different sequence to call function bar:
movabsq $bar@GOTOFF, %rax
addq %rdx, %rax
call *%rax
these tests will fail.
--
H.J.
