On 4/28/23 10:43, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 08:20:24 PDT (-0700), jeffreya...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/27/23 01:39, Jan Beulich via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 26.04.2023 17:45, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 08:26:26 PDT (-0700), gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
wrote:
On 4/25/23 08:50, Jan Beulich via Gcc-patches wrote:
RISC-V will emit ".option nopic" when -fno-pie is in effect, which
matches the generic pattern. Just like done for Alpha, special-case
RISC-V.
---
A couple more targets look to be affected as well, simply because
their
"no-operation" insn doesn't match the expectation. With the
apparently
necessary further special casing I then also question the presence of
"SWYM" in the generic pattern.
An alternative here might be to use dg-additional-options to add e.g.
-fpie. I don't think I know all possible implications of doing so,
though.
Looks like there's already a no-pie for SPARC. Nothing's jumping
out as
to why, but I'm not super familiar with `-fpatchable-function-entry`.
I think this is fine. Go ahead and install it.
We run into this sort of thing somewhat frequently. Maybe we want a DG
matcher that avoids matching assembler directives? Or maybe even a
"scan-assembler-nop-times" type thing, given that different ports have
different names for the instruction?
I don't see reason to block fixing the test on something bigger,
though,
so seems fine for trunk. Presumably we'd want to backport this as
well?
Perhaps, but in order to do so I'd need to be given the respective okay.
Given how often we're trying to avoid matching directives, particularly
directives which refer to filenames this sounds like a good idea to me.
I think the ask there was for an OK to backport this fix to 13? So I
guess more concretely:
OK for trunk. OK to backport for 13?
Sure, OK for backporting as well.
jeff
