From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id 9CSRJOZedmNPhxkAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 11:18:46 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 871111E124; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 11:18:46 -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=FOgmx3Em; 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,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.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 3C41E1E0CB for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 11:18:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72F543AA902A for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 16:18:45 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 72F543AA902A DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1668701925; bh=8bYgFgrjQoqsgHzV5x+jeQA9/Elh15CoQFNchn8HY6Y=; h=Subject:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=FOgmx3EmznR82M7GaYcAWIzPJMiFHCm/4h7QcLAyqazgj09/GQ3kMECf8Mt902ATA gjiW9QiNlvw0mfdPM88woIQjHf3hbDSIfpqM6z09qUmY033etjkZdVBbZPDTJiLONo Si5Irbt74tQTO2B+YBE/mJ1OLSMHvQqO/Lhdmi3M= Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4B623AA88FF for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 16:18:25 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org B4B623AA88FF Received: from pps.filterd (m0098417.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 2AHEQFYo002461 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 16:18:25 GMT Received: from ppma01wdc.us.ibm.com (fd.55.37a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.55.85.253]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3kwpqh361m-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 16:18:25 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma01wdc.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma01wdc.us.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 2AHG51fa007424 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 16:18:24 GMT Received: from b03cxnp08027.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03cxnp08027.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.19]) by ppma01wdc.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3kt349t919-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 16:18:24 +0000 Received: from smtpav04.dal12v.mail.ibm.com ([9.208.128.131]) by b03cxnp08027.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 2AHGIJfO45810082 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 17 Nov 2022 16:18:19 GMT Received: from smtpav04.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6083358056; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 16:18:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav04.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 127CC5804E; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 16:18:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from li-e362e14c-2378-11b2-a85c-87d605f3c641.ibm.com (unknown [9.163.52.7]) by smtpav04.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 16:18:21 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <7460e9729e8bac028b71b39fa76eac38dea9c61c.camel@us.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] PowerPC, fix gdb.base/retval-large-struct.exp To: Ulrich Weigand , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Cc: "will_schmidt@vnet.ibm.com" Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2022 08:18:21 -0800 In-Reply-To: <6606abb71b4b8a5f5d546f1db62f6d871fd6e7ac.camel@de.ibm.com> References: <71926c391f43cee2051ea0c9b449ec0aecc847ec.camel@us.ibm.com> <6606abb71b4b8a5f5d546f1db62f6d871fd6e7ac.camel@de.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5 (3.28.5-18.el8) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: 2lBPyMFj8r6sDr6kQeSniczQgpL9OLZn X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 2lBPyMFj8r6sDr6kQeSniczQgpL9OLZn X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.219,Aquarius:18.0.895,Hydra:6.0.545,FMLib:17.11.122.1 definitions=2022-11-17_06,2022-11-17_01,2022-06-22_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 spamscore=0 priorityscore=1501 suspectscore=0 clxscore=1015 impostorscore=0 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=771 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2210170000 definitions=main-2211170120 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: Carl Love via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Carl Love Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" Ulrich: On Thu, 2022-11-17 at 12:57 +0000, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > > Currently the test gdb.base/retval-large-struct.exp is not able to > > access the return buffer address for the data being returned by the > > function. The functionality needed to obtain the value of r3 which > > holds the return buffer address on entry to the function was > > recently > > added in a new gdb method. This new method can be used by this > > test to > > allow it to correctly access the data being returned by the > > function. > > Are there any more test cases that should get -fvar-tracking now? > > In the long run, it might be good to work with GCC developers to see > if we can't have entry value DWARF records emitted (at least for > simple cases like the return buffer address) even without variable > tracking ... At the moment, this is the only one I know of. The number of test failures on Power is getting relatively short. There are about 15ish tests that are currently failing on Power 10. I have the list and have been adding notes for each test as to what the issue is or is fixed by a patch under development. I have a couple of patches that have been posted and approved and a couple that I am working on still. Let me refresh the list and my notes and I can send it out so you can see where we are at with the regression test clean up. Carl