This patch adds a test for the case where we have prefixed load/store
instructions, a large stack frame, and stack checking is enabled.
This is patch #7 of 7. I have checked this patch on a little endian power8
system running Linux, and the test passed. Can I check this into the GCC 10
trunk?
2020-04-27 Michael Meissner <meiss...@linux.ibm.com>
* gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-stack-protect.c: New test to make sure
-fstack-protect-strong works with prefixed addressing.
--- /tmp/OxuBEg_prefix-stack-protect.c 2020-04-27 14:12:53.883004507 -0400
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-stack-protect.c 2020-04-27
14:12:53.706006931 -0400
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_prefixed_addr } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -mdejagnu-cpu=future -fstack-protector-strong" } */
+
+/* Test that we can handle large stack frames with -fstack-protector-strong and
+ prefixed addressing. This was originally discovered in trying to build
+ glibc with -mcpu=future, and vfwprintf.c failed because it used
+ -fstack-protector-strong. */
+
+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} } } */
--
Michael Meissner, IBM
IBM, M/S 2506R, 550 King Street, Littleton, MA 01460-6245, USA
email: meiss...@linux.ibm.com, phone: +1 (978) 899-4797
