On 07/06/2019 13:40, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 13:07, Sam Tebbs <sam.te...@arm.com> wrote: >> Committed as obvious as r271954. >> >> On 05/06/2019 11:20, Sam Tebbs wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> When committing my b-key patch (r271735) I didn't svn add the new test >>> files, this patch adds them and moves the exception tests to >>> g++.target/aarch64. >>> >>> Tested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and aarch64-none-elf. >>> >>> OK for trunk? >>> >>> gcc/testsuite >>> 2019-06-05 Sam Tebbs<sam.te...@arm.com> >>> >>> * gcc.target/aarch64/return_address_sign_b_1.c: New file. >>> * gcc.target/aarch64/return_address_sign_b_2.c: New file. >>> * gcc.target/aarch64/return_address_sign_b_3.c: New file. >>> * gcc.target/aarch64/return_address_sign_builtin.c: New file. >>> * g++.target/aarch64/return_address_sign_ab_exception.C: New file. >>> * g++.target/aarch64/return_address_sign_b_exception.C: New file. >>> > Hi, > > I've noticed that: > return_address_sign_ab_exception.C fails for me (and others according > to gcc-testresults): > return_address_sign_ab_exception.s: Assembler messages: > return_address_sign_ab_exception.s:34: Error: unknown pseudo-op: > `.cfi_b_key_frame' > compiler exited with status 1 > FAIL: g++.target/aarch64/return_address_sign_ab_exception.C (test for > excess errors) > > Similarly: > return_address_sign_b_exception.s: Assembler messages: > return_address_sign_b_exception.s:10: Error: unknown pseudo-op: > `.cfi_b_key_frame' > return_address_sign_b_exception.s:35: Error: unknown pseudo-op: > `.cfi_b_key_frame' > compiler exited with status 1 > FAIL: g++.target/aarch64/return_address_sign_b_exception.C (test for > excess errors) > > > and in ILP32 mode: > cc1: sorry, unimplemented: return address signing is only supported > for '-mabi=lp64' > compiler exited with status 1 > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/return_address_sign_builtin.c (test for excess > errors) > Excess errors: > cc1: sorry, unimplemented: return address signing is only supported > for '-mabi=lp64' > > These tests require some effective-target checks. > > Christophe
Hi, Thanks. I have been running my tests with a build of binutils that supports the directive so didn't notice this case. I'll work on a patch to add the proper checks. Sam
