> On 23 May 2019, at 16:17, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
So .. will they regress, or are they already failing there?
Do you have a suggestion for what could be done to cover this case too?
Iain
