Hi > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Sandiford [mailto:richard.sandif...@arm.com] > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 10:42 PM > To: duanbo (C) <duan...@huawei.com> > Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] aarch64：Add an error message in large code model for > ilp32 [PR94577] > > "duanbo (C)" <duan...@huawei.com> writes: > > Hi > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Richard Sandiford [mailto:richard.sandif...@arm.com] > >> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2020 9:38 PM > >> To: duanbo (C) <duan...@huawei.com> > >> Cc: Wilco Dijkstra <wilco.dijks...@arm.com>; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH PR94577] [AArch64] ：Add an error message in large > >> code model for ilp32 > >> > >> "duanbo (C)" <duan...@huawei.com> writes: > >> > Thank you for your suggestions. > >> > I have modified accordingly and a full test has been carried, no > >> > new failure > >> witnessed. > >> > Attached please find the new patch which has been adjusted to be > >> > suitable > >> for git am. > >> > Does the v2 patch look better ? > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Duan bo > >> > > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: Wilco Dijkstra [mailto:wilco.dijks...@arm.com] > >> > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 4:40 AM > >> > To: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; duanbo (C) > >> > <duan...@huawei.com> > >> > Subject: Re: [PATCH PR00002] aarch64：Add an error message in large > >> > code model for ilp32 > >> > > >> > Hi Duanbo, > >> > > >> >> This is a simple fix for pr94577. > >> >> The option -mabi=ilp32 should not be used in large code model. > >> >> Like x86, > >> using -mx32 and -mcmodel=large together will result in an error message. > >> >> On aarch64, there is no error message for this option conflict. > >> >> A solution to this problem can be found in the attached patch. > >> >> Bootstrap and tested on aarch64 Linux platform. No new regression > >> witnessed. > >> >> Any suggestion? > >> > > >> > Thanks for your patch, more than 4GB doesn't make any sense with > >> > ILP32 > >> indeed. > >> > A few suggestions: > >> > > >> > It would be good to also update the documentation for > >> > -mcmodel=large to > >> state it is incompatible with -fpic, -fPIC and -mabi=ilp32. > >> > > >> > The patch adds a another switch statement on mcmodel that ignores > >> > the > >> previous processing done (which may changes the selected mcmodel). It > >> would be safer and more concise to use one switch at the top level > >> and in each case use an if statement to handle the special cases. > >> > > >> > A few minor nitpics: > >> > > >> > + PR target/94577 > >> > + * gcc.target/aarch64/pr94577.c : New test > >> > > >> > Just like comments, there should be a '.' at the end of changelog > >> > entries. > >> > > >> > AFAICT the format isn't exactly specified, but the email header > >> > should be > >> like: > >> > > >> > [PATCH][AArch64] PR94577: Add an error message in large code model > >> > for > >> > ilp32 > >> > > >> > Sometimes the PR number is also placed in brackets. > >> > > >> > Cheers, > >> > Wilco > >> > > >> > > >> > From feb16a5e5d35d4f632e1be10ce0ac4f4c3505d22 Mon Sep 17 > 00:00:00 > >> 2001 > >> > From: Duan bo <duan...@huawei.com> > >> > Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 05:19:31 -0400 > >> > Subject: [PATCH] aarch64: Add an error message in large code model > >> > for > >> > ilp32 [PR94577] > >> > > >> > The option -mabi=ilp32 should not be used in large code model. An > >> > error message is added for the option conflict. > >> > > >> > 2020-04-15 Duan bo <duan...@huawei.com> > >> > > >> > PR target/94577 > >> > * config/aarch64/aarch64.c: Add an error message for option conflict. > >> > * doc/invoke.texi (-mcmodel=large): Mention that -mcmodel=large > >> is > >> > incompatible with -fpic, -fPIC and -mabi=ilp32. > >> > > >> > 2020-04-15 Duan bo <duan...@huawei.com> > >> > > >> > PR target/94577 > >> > * gcc.target/aarch64/pr94577.c: New test. > >> > --- > >> > gcc/ChangeLog | 7 ++++ > >> > gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c | 41 ++++++++++++---------- > >> > gcc/doc/invoke.texi | 4 ++- > >> > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog | 5 +++ > >> > gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/pr94577.c | 10 ++++++ > >> > 5 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) create mode > >> > 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/pr94577.c > >> > > >> > diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog b/gcc/ChangeLog index > >> > 3c6a45e8fe7..c2f1fcb7bff 100644 > >> > --- a/gcc/ChangeLog > >> > +++ b/gcc/ChangeLog > >> > @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@ > >> > +2020-04-15 Duan bo <duan...@huawei.com> > >> > + > >> > + PR target/94577 > >> > + * config/aarch64/aarch64.c: Add an error message for option > >> > conflict. > >> > + * doc/invoke.texi (-mcmodel=large): Mention that -mcmodel=large > >> is > >> > + incompatible with -fpic, -fPIC and -mabi=ilp32. > >> > + > >> > 2020-04-14 Max Filippov <jcmvb...@gmail.com> > >> > > >> > PR target/94584 > >> > diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c > >> > b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c index 4af562a81ea..f8a38bd899a > >> > 100644 > >> > --- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c > >> > +++ b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c > >> > @@ -14707,32 +14707,35 @@ aarch64_init_expanders (void) static > >> > void initialize_aarch64_code_model (struct gcc_options *opts) { > >> > - if (opts->x_flag_pic) > >> > + aarch64_cmodel = opts->x_aarch64_cmodel_var; > >> > + switch (opts->x_aarch64_cmodel_var) > >> > { > >> > - switch (opts->x_aarch64_cmodel_var) > >> > - { > >> > - case AARCH64_CMODEL_TINY: > >> > + case AARCH64_CMODEL_TINY: > >> > + if (opts->x_flag_pic) > >> > >> Minor formatting nit, but: the case statement should be indented by > >> the same amount as the "{" for the switch statement. The code after > >> the case statement should be indented by two further columns. > >> (The formatting is wrong in the existing code too, which is probably > >> what confused things.) > >> > >> > aarch64_cmodel = AARCH64_CMODEL_TINY_PIC; > >> > - break; > >> > - case AARCH64_CMODEL_SMALL: > >> > + break; > >> > + case AARCH64_CMODEL_SMALL: > >> > + if (opts->x_flag_pic) > >> > + { > >> > #ifdef HAVE_AS_SMALL_PIC_RELOCS > >> > - aarch64_cmodel = (flag_pic == 2 > >> > - ? AARCH64_CMODEL_SMALL_PIC > >> > - : AARCH64_CMODEL_SMALL_SPIC); > >> > + aarch64_cmodel = (flag_pic == 2 > >> > + ? AARCH64_CMODEL_SMALL_PIC > >> > + : AARCH64_CMODEL_SMALL_SPIC); > >> > #else > >> > - aarch64_cmodel = AARCH64_CMODEL_SMALL_PIC; > >> > + aarch64_cmodel = AARCH64_CMODEL_SMALL_PIC; > >> > #endif > >> > - break; > >> > - case AARCH64_CMODEL_LARGE: > >> > + } > >> > + break; > >> > + case AARCH64_CMODEL_LARGE: > >> > + if (opts->x_flag_pic) > >> > sorry ("code model %qs with %<-f%s%>", "large", > >> > opts->x_flag_pic > 1 ? "PIC" : "pic"); > >> > - break; > >> > - default: > >> > - gcc_unreachable (); > >> > - } > >> > - } > >> > - else > >> > - aarch64_cmodel = opts->x_aarch64_cmodel_var; > >> > + if (opts->x_aarch64_abi == AARCH64_ABI_ILP32) > >> > + sorry ("code model large not supported in ilp32 mode"); > >> > >> I think "large" should be quoted here, like it is in the pic/PIC message: > >> > >> sorry ("code model %<large%> not supported in ilp32 mode"); > >> > >> or: > >> > >> sorry ("code model %qs not supported in ilp32 mode", "large"); > >> > >> The second's probably better. Each message format string creates > >> more work for translators, and with the second form, there's more > >> chance that the format can be reused elsewhere. > >> > >> > + break; > >> > + default: > >> > + gcc_unreachable (); > >> > >> This is pre-existing, but in cases like this, it's probably better to > >> leave out the default case. That way bootstrap will fail if a new code > model is added. > > My quoting made it very unclear, sorry, but here I meant we should remove > the whole "default:" case. Of course, that triggers exactly the kind of > bootstrap failure I mentioned: > > error: enumeration value ‘AARCH64_CMODEL_TINY_PIC’ not handled in > switch [-Werror=switch] > error: enumeration value ‘AARCH64_CMODEL_SMALL_PIC’ not handled in > switch [-Werror=switch] > error: enumeration value ‘AARCH64_CMODEL_SMALL_SPIC’ not handled in > switch [-Werror=switch] > > I think it would be good to have: > > case AARCH64_CMODEL_TINY_PIC: > case AARCH64_CMODEL_SMALL_PIC: > case AARCH64_CMODEL_SMALL_SPIC: > gcc_unreachable (); > } > > and no "default:" case. > > (When I was reviewing the original patch and existing code, it wasn't obvious > to me why we needed the default: case and gcc_unreachable, but that was > probably just me being dumb. :-) Listing the individual case statements > makes things more explicit. It also means we'll get warnings/ errors if we > forget to update the switch statement for a new code model.) > > Can you retest and repost with that change? Sorry for the hassle. > > Thanks, > Richard
Sorry for misunderstanding what you mean. I have made a new patch and carried a full test, no new failure witnessed. Attached please find the v4 patch. Thanks, duanbo
pr94577-v4.patch
Description: pr94577-v4.patch
