On 02/09/2018 03:34 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2018, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 02/08/2018 08:53 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 01:21:27AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>>> Here's what I checked in, right after the LVU patch.
>>>> [IEPM] Introduce inline entry point markers
>>> One of these two patches breaks ppc64le bootstrap with the assembler
>>> complaining "Error: view number mismatch" when compiling
>> I've just passed along a similar failure (.i, .s and command line
>> options) to Alex for ppc64 (be) building glibc.
> This fixes at least the testcase Jeff provided me with. I'm going ahead
> and checking it in as obvious. I suppose we might need more of these,
> on this and other ports, if they have been sloppy about zero-length
> pseudo insns :-(
> Would you guys please let me know whether you still see a problem, if
> you get a chance to respin? I was just about to crash in bed when I saw
> your email.
> When I get back up, I'll build the latest binutils release on ppc64,
> ppc64el and aarch64, and then bootstrap gcc with it. I should have done
> that when I broadened my testing of the SFN+LVU+IEPM patchset to those
> platforms, but I didn't realize I was failing to test them with an
> assembler with view support, doh! Sorry about that.
No need for the binutils+gcc bootstrapping test when you get up. Mine's
already run. ppc, ppc64, ppc64le, aarch64 all covered.
My tester does have half-dozen or so other failures overnight, but I
haven't looked at them yet. If any look similar I'll first check if
we're dealing with a zero length pseudo insn (I wouldn't be surprised if
blockage insns are consistently wrong on that).