From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id No5OG/3Yd2NF/BkAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2022 14:11:57 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 612041E124; Fri, 18 Nov 2022 14:11:57 -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=yC885msR; 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=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,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 EAB621E0CB for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2022 14:11:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E9B13852C59 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2022 19:11:55 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 5E9B13852C59 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1668798715; bh=WjXumYpgoXhhf32CnZK6TCQzSBVdB6ZR4iVk1KsAbTs=; h=To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=yC885msRhdPtAKzR4UjawWtiQd3Bckp1iuHKTtPENnWkOCJFskNM/ApC/OUlIZEFU ivNAJSi61DYoCfbck4pvSQPmkGSayiEmnTLPXJQ3FEjmWnSJJR2x49CYvOAjeaP6nm dbMyG/W4Zm8Nq04TfSiO+tnl3SoiGaLI4Rmzm7SI= Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 709F53857C51 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2022 19:11:04 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 709F53857C51 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 2AIGo8RA021813; Fri, 18 Nov 2022 19:11:04 GMT Received: from ppma03dal.us.ibm.com (b.bd.3ea9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.62.189.11]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3kxd3w4d8y-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 18 Nov 2022 19:11:03 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03dal.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03dal.us.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 2AIJ5QUL008764; Fri, 18 Nov 2022 19:11:03 GMT Received: from b03cxnp08025.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03cxnp08025.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.17]) by ppma03dal.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3kt34akjrf-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 18 Nov 2022 19:11:03 +0000 Received: from smtpav05.dal12v.mail.ibm.com ([9.208.128.132]) by b03cxnp08025.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 2AIJAxkZ21824240 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 18 Nov 2022 19:10:59 GMT Received: from smtpav05.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ABA158052; Fri, 18 Nov 2022 19:11:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav05.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329E65804C; Fri, 18 Nov 2022 19:11:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from li-e362e14c-2378-11b2-a85c-87d605f3c641.ibm.com (unknown [9.163.52.7]) by smtpav05.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Nov 2022 19:11:01 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <82e43627f7a2a2e06a5fc79db1fae17eb01c12e4.camel@us.ibm.com> To: Tom de Vries , Ulrich Weigand , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Cc: "will_schmidt@vnet.ibm.com" , cel@us.ibm.com Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2022 11:11:00 -0800 In-Reply-To: <0eff963d-4633-7bdf-39be-003b1671432e@suse.de> References: <71926c391f43cee2051ea0c9b449ec0aecc847ec.camel@us.ibm.com> <0eff963d-4633-7bdf-39be-003b1671432e@suse.de> 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: pP-VL62Q0zlxspWK4o9s41BBBCzOOpVE X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: pP-VL62Q0zlxspWK4o9s41BBBCzOOpVE Subject: RE: [PATCH] PowerPC, fix gdb.base/retval-large-struct.exp 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=2022-11-18_06,2022-11-18_01,2022-06-22_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 clxscore=1015 priorityscore=1501 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2210170000 definitions=main-2211180113 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" Tom: On Fri, 2022-11-18 at 17:25 +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: > 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 > } The [have_fvar_tracking] does a runtime test to see if the compiler supports the -fvar-tracking option. So if it passes, then the option is supported. The test makes the additional check [istarget powerpc*- *-*] || [istarget s390x*-*-* ]) && [is_c_compiler_gcc] redundant. I don't think there is any need for the additional checks. Carl