> On 16 Dec 2019, at 14:54, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> We have local patches adding
>>
>> dg-require-effective-target fpic
>>
>> directives to these.
>>
>> Is that the correct thing to do ?
>
> Yeah. Adding that to tests that use -fpic or -fPIC is OK/preapproved.
>
> Personally, I don't
Olivier Hainque writes:
>> On 16 Dec 2019, at 11:19, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>
>>> * gcc.target/aarch64/aapcs64/aapcs64.exp: Guard tests using
>>> abitest.S by check_weak_available.
>>
>> OK, thanks.
>
> Great, thanks for your prompt feedback Richard!
>
> As a side question, we have
> On 16 Dec 2019, at 11:19, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> * gcc.target/aarch64/aapcs64/aapcs64.exp: Guard tests using
>> abitest.S by check_weak_available.
>
> OK, thanks.
Great, thanks for your prompt feedback Richard!
As a side question, we have quite a few failures or aarch64
spec
Hi Andrew,
> On 16 Dec 2019, at 10:54, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> Why does VxWorks not have weak symbol support when it is an elf
> target? I can understand it not having support in a loader but these
> symbols should all be resolved at build time.
VxWorks has so called "Dynamic Kernel Modules",
Olivier Hainque writes:
> Hello,
>
> Some tests from gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/aapcs64
> resort to the abitest.S source, which defines a few weak symbols:
>
> ...
> .weak testfunc
> .weak testfunc_ptr
> .weak saved_return_address
>
> The attached patch is a proposal to preven
On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 1:25 AM Olivier Hainque wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Some tests from gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/aapcs64
> resort to the abitest.S source, which defines a few weak symbols:
>
> ...
> .weak testfunc
> .weak testfunc_ptr
> .weak saved_return_address
>
> The attac
Hello,
Some tests from gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/aapcs64
resort to the abitest.S source, which defines a few weak symbols:
...
.weak testfunc
.weak testfunc_ptr
.weak saved_return_address
The attached patch is a proposal to prevent the execution of
those tests in configurat
