Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Call flow implementation for PC-relative addressing

2019-05-29 Thread Segher Boessenkool
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 12:44:35AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote: > On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 07:40:46AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > All necessary linker (and binutils and GAS) support is upstream already, > > right? > > I believe so, except gold support is lacking right now. Excellent :-) > >

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Call flow implementation for PC-relative addressing

2019-05-29 Thread Bill Schmidt
On 5/29/19 7:40 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Hi Bill, > > On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 09:11:44PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote: >> (1) When a function uses PC-relative code generation, all direct calls >> (other than >> sibcalls) that the function makes to local or external callees should appear >> a

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Call flow implementation for PC-relative addressing

2019-05-29 Thread Alan Modra
On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 07:40:46AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > All necessary linker (and binutils and GAS) support is upstream already, > right? I believe so, except gold support is lacking right now. > >pld 12,0(0),1 > >.reloc .-8,R_PPC64_PLT_PCREL34_NOTOC,foo > > Are we

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Call flow implementation for PC-relative addressing

2019-05-29 Thread Segher Boessenkool
Hi Bill, On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 09:11:44PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote: > (1) When a function uses PC-relative code generation, all direct calls (other > than > sibcalls) that the function makes to local or external callees should appear > as > "bl sym@notoc" and should not be followed by a nop

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Call flow implementation for PC-relative addressing

2019-05-28 Thread Bill Schmidt
Hi, Please go ahead and review this.  In the test case gcc.target/powerpc/notoc-direct-1.c, I accidentally left in '+' characters in column 1 of the first three lines, which caused the test case failure. Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu with that fixed.  Is this okay for t

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Call flow implementation for PC-relative addressing

2019-05-24 Thread Bill Schmidt
New test case ICEs, so consider this withdrawn.  Sorry again about this. Bill On 5/23/19 9:17 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote: > Hm, I got ahead of myself on this one.  I haven't done the regstrap yet, > so please hold off reviewing for now. > > Sorry for the noise.  I shouldn't post when I'm tired... > >

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Call flow implementation for PC-relative addressing

2019-05-23 Thread Bill Schmidt
Hm, I got ahead of myself on this one.  I haven't done the regstrap yet, so please hold off reviewing for now. Sorry for the noise.  I shouldn't post when I'm tired... Thanks, Bill On 5/23/19 9:11 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote: > Hi, > > This patch contains the changes to implement call flow for PC-rel

[PATCH] rs6000: Call flow implementation for PC-relative addressing

2019-05-23 Thread Bill Schmidt
Hi, This patch contains the changes to implement call flow for PC-relative addressing. It's an amalgam of several internal patches that Alan and I worked on, and as a result it's hard to tease apart individual pieces much further. So I apologize that this patch is a little larger than the ot