From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id WZHtIZfqgmG6UgAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 03 Nov 2021 16:01:27 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 6DAF11F0C1; Wed, 3 Nov 2021 16:01:27 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,RDNS_DYNAMIC, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 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 097021EDDB for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2021 16:01:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37DB03858C3A for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2021 20:01:25 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 37DB03858C3A DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1635969685; bh=kDJiOJT0rj4g95O90h5S6iYID+92Yq6fX5aHOTCNALw=; h=Subject:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To: From; b=SB93O7OLvZobFs1Vxpi26FbCQewuT8fTyXvLP5odInvDOYtHCJ/fRZTDgAryCvxXY 44Lxb0Grt7VBfGjSA6kmXEQhvM8BIjvx1FnfdL1I1JfV+yvJxNodHHh/Gwt4SNg/ND PiHrcNwAH7Pdxn8I1Bp2y0ZOQsUJnaVC/l0lG7lU= Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D07C63858007 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2021 20:00:54 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org D07C63858007 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-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 186D11FC9E; Wed, 3 Nov 2021 20:00:54 +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 E12B413E53; Wed, 3 Nov 2021 20:00:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id /Uv/NHXqgmHVMQAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Wed, 03 Nov 2021 20:00:53 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] [gdb/testsuite] Fix 64-bit dwarf test-cases with -m32 To: Andreas Schwab , Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches References: <20211101175611.32103-1-tdevries@suse.de> <874k8vfvg4.fsf@igel.home> Message-ID: <32e918ff-583b-cc04-4f67-09b160b6d3cb@suse.de> Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2021 21:00:53 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <874k8vfvg4.fsf@igel.home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US 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 11/1/21 9:54 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote: > On Nov 01 2021, Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches wrote: > >> When running test-case gdb.dwarf2/loc-sec-offset.exp with target board -m32, >> I run into: >> ... >> builtin_spawn -ignore SIGHUP gcc -fno-stack-protector -m32 \ >> -fdiagnostics-color=never -c -o loc-sec-offset-dw641.o \ >> loc-sec-offset-dw64.S^M >> as: loc-sec-offset-dw641.o: unsupported relocation type: 0x1^M >> loc-sec-offset-dw64.S: Assembler messages:^M >> loc-sec-offset-dw64.S:29: Error: cannot represent relocation type \ >> BFD_RELOC_64^M >> ... >> >> Looking at line 29, we have: >> ... >> .8byte .Labbrev1_begin /* Abbrevs */ >> ... >> >> It would be nice if the assembler could handle this somehow. But I guess >> it's not unreasonable that an assembler for a 32-bit architecture will object >> to handling 64-bit labels. > > Shouldn't the 64-bit dwarf tests just be skipped on 32-bit targets? Because ? Thanks, - Tom