From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id vXyuFQGyd2Mg8RkAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2022 11:25:37 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 4B7DF1E124; Fri, 18 Nov 2022 11:25:37 -0500 (EST) Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=oFPIK9Zc; dkim-atps=neutral X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RDNS_DYNAMIC,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01CD21E0CB for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2022 11:25:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92C01384F48F for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2022 16:25:36 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 92C01384F48F DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1668788736; bh=ZRVonwtZpUSt9JpsR3ko6HmjddGL6TEOV0XSwnlCHMA=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=oFPIK9Zc4qEdnyoULwpRkjWovT2QEj0e/aoSuMTh0fbmz01waZrNQj0bbTJE+QKbf Vji4256lDWPBRtlwNvD1glkQkcMMIw9zLpQOuEJo/j2lwiApnhe1nIP/pHRKhv5961 p1nI2Af+JAWTh2h3lYnCuG2hcKpxBHXFEela/M68= Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.220.28]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F94F38518AE for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2022 16:25:16 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 5F94F38518AE Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C656C22CC2; Fri, 18 Nov 2022 16:25:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BF7E1345B; Fri, 18 Nov 2022 16:25:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id yG8sEeqxd2NPBgAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Fri, 18 Nov 2022 16:25:14 +0000 Message-ID: <0eff963d-4633-7bdf-39be-003b1671432e@suse.de> Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2022 17:25:13 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.2.2 Subject: Re: [PATCH] PowerPC, fix gdb.base/retval-large-struct.exp Content-Language: en-US To: Ulrich Weigand , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , "cel@us.ibm.com" Cc: "will_schmidt@vnet.ibm.com" References: <71926c391f43cee2051ea0c9b449ec0aecc847ec.camel@us.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Tom de Vries Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 11/18/22 17:04, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Tom de Vries wrote: > >> AFAIU, needing -fvar-tracking is specific to powerpc, so we should limit >> it's impact to that target. >> >> And it's a gcc compiler flag, so perhaps we should limit it's impact to >> that as well. > > No, it's not really powerpc specific - the same mechanism can be > used on many other platforms with an ABI that uses a return buffer > address that is not preserved. (E.g. we're currently looking into > enabling it on s390x.) > Right, so we can add those archs to the list of archs requiring -fvar-tracking support when gcc is used. > And given that the flag is harmless if it's available (which the > test verifies), I think it makes sense to just always enable it. > That's fine by me. Then I get: ... set flags {} lappend flags debug if { [have_fvar_tracking] } { lappend flags -fvar-tracking } else { if { ( [istarget powerpc*-*-*] || [istarget s390x*-*-* ]) && [is_c_compiler_gcc] } { unsupported "gcc used, -fvar-tracking needed" return -1 } } if {[prepare_for_testing "failed to prepare" $testfile $srcfile $flags]} { return -1 } ... Thanks, - Tom