On 8/16/19 6:50 PM, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
> This patch makes the several effective target checks in
> target-supports.exp to be aware of eBPF targets.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_malloc): New
> function.
> (check_effective_target_trampolines): Adapt to eBPF.
> (check_effective_target_stack_size): Likewise.
> (dg-effective-target-value): Likewise.
> (check_effective_target_indirect_jumps): Likewise.
> (check_effective_target_nonlocal_goto): Likewise.
> (check_effective_target_global_constructor): Likewise.
> (check_effective_target_return_address): Likewise.
> ---
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog | 11 +++++++++++
> gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp | 27 +++++++++++++++++++--------
> 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> index 300d22a2d65..8b6168626d8 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
>
> @@ -546,7 +550,11 @@ proc check_effective_target_stack_size { } {
> proc dg-effective-target-value { effective_target } {
> if { "$effective_target" == "stack_size" } {
> if [check_effective_target_stack_size] {
> - return [target_info gcc,stack_size]
> + if [istarget bpf-*-*] {
> + return "512"
> + } else {
> + return [target_info gcc,stack_size]
> + }
> }
> }
Shouldn't the BPF stack size be defined be in your target files?
The ChangeLog mentions check_effective_target_malloc, but I don't see it
in the patch itself. Note that it needs to be documented in
gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi as well if you are adding a new
check_effective_target_<whatever>
jeff
