Hi Mike,
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 07:26:44PM -0500, Michael Meissner wrote:
> * gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-stack-protect.c: New test to make sure
> -fstack-protect-strong works with prefixed addressing.
The option is -fstack-protector-strong. But what is tested is equally
true for any use of the stack protector, whichever subflag is used, so
it should just say that (and in the changelog, just "New test.").
> --- /tmp/byVdyb_prefix-stack-protect.c 2019-11-13 17:45:35.374176204
> -0500
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-stack-protect.c 2019-11-13
> 17:45:35.143174125 -0500
> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_prefixed_addr_ok } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -mdejagnu-cpu=future -fstack-protector-strong" } */
> +
> +/* Test that we can handle large stack frames with -fstack-protector-strong
> and
> + prefixed addressing. */
> +
> +extern long foo (char *);
> +
> +long
> +bar (void)
> +{
> + char buffer[0x20000];
> + return foo (buffer) + 1;
> +}
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler {\mpld\M} } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler {\mpstd\M} } } */
So what it actually tests is if we use prefixed loads and stores for
the stack protector generated code?
Segher
