Re: branch-relative-long fails on s390x host (was: [PATCH] tests/tcg/s390x: Use a different PCRel32 notation in branch-relative-long.c)
On Wed, 2022-05-04 at 12:51 +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-05-04 at 12:46 +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > On 04/05/2022 11.37, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2022-05-04 at 11:14 +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > > > On 04/05/2022 11.07, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 2022-05-04 at 09:01 +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > > > > > On 04/05/2022 00.46, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, 2022-05-03 at 21:26 +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 03/05/2022 11.02, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 02/05/2022 18.48, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Binutils >=2.37 and Clang do not accept (. -
> > > > > > > > > > 0x1)
> > > > > > > > > > PCRel32
> > > > > > > > > > constants. While this looks like a bug that needs
> > > > > > > > > > fixing,
> > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > different notation (-0x1) as a workaround.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Reported-by: Thomas Huth
> > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich
> > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c | 4 ++-
> > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-
> > > > > > > > > > )
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c
> > > > > > > > > > b/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c
> > > > > > > > > > index 94219afcad..8ce9f1c2e5 100644
> > > > > > > > > > --- a/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c
> > > > > > > > > > +++ b/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c
> > > > > > > > > > @@ -13,8 +13,8 @@
> > > > > > > > > > #_name "_end:\n");
> > > > > > > > > > DEFINE_ASM(br_r14, "br %r14");
> > > > > > > > > > -DEFINE_ASM(brasl_r0, "brasl %r0,.-0x1");
> > > > > > > > > > -DEFINE_ASM(brcl_0xf, "brcl 0xf,.-0x1");
> > > > > > > > > > +DEFINE_ASM(brasl_r0, "brasl %r0,-0x1");
> > > > > > > > > > +DEFINE_ASM(brcl_0xf, "brcl 0xf,-0x1");
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Works for me, thanks!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sorry, I spoke too soon - it compiles fine, and also
> > > > > > > > runs
> > > > > > > > fine
> > > > > > > > when I
> > > > > > > > run it
> > > > > > > > natively, but when I run it through "qemu-s390x", it
> > > > > > > > crashes...
> > > > > > > > does
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > work for you?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi, yes, I just double-checked - it works fine for me.
> > > > > > > Could you please share the resulting test binary?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sure, here it is:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://people.redhat.com/~thuth/data/branch-relative-long
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thomas
> > > > >
> > > > > Your binary worked fine for me.
> > > > >
> > > > > QEMU commit 2e3408b3cc7de4e87a9adafc8c19bfce3abec947,
> > > > > x86_64 host,
> > > >
> > > > Oh, well, now that you've mentioned it: I was running "make
> > > > check-
> > > > tcg" on a
> > > > s390x host. It works fine on a x86, indeed. So the new problem
> > > > is
> > > > likely in
> > > > the s390x TCG host backend... Richard, could you maybe have a
> > > > look?
> > > >
> > > > Thomas
> > >
> > > It worked fine on a s390x host for me as well.
> >
> > Weird ... Did you compile qemu-s390x itself with Clang or with GCC?
> > I
> > just
> > discovered that the crash also only happens if I compile qemu-s390x
> > with
> > Clang - there is no crash when I compile it with GCC.
> >
> > > Can this be related to the large mmap() that the test performs?
> >
> > It works when I compile the test with GCC instead of Clang - so I
> > assume
> > that the problem is somewhere else...
> >
> > Thomas
> >
>
> I see, I just used your test with the gcc-built QEMU.
> With clang-built QEMU it hangs for me on the s390x host.
Actually I've been somewhat impatient, it's not a hang, but rather
quite a long wait followed by a SEGV. So I debugged this a bit, and
apparently what happens is:
- The test zeroes out a code page with exrl+xc.
- do_helper_xc() is called. Clang generates exrl+xc combination there
as well.
- Since there already exists a TB for the code in question, its page is
read-only. SIGSEGV happens.
- host_signal_handler() calls host_signal_write() and it doesn't
recognize exrl as a write. Therefore page_unprotect() is not called
and the signal is forwarded to the test.
The following does indeed help:
--- a/linux-user/include/host/s390/host-signal.h
+++ b/linux-user/include/host/s390/host-signal.h
@@ -61,6 +61,12 @@ static inline bool host_signal_write(siginfo_t
*info, host_sigcontext *uc)
return true;
}
break;
+case 0xc6: /* RIL-b format insns */
+switch (pinsn[0] & 0xf) {
+case 0x0: /* EXRL */
+return true;
+}
+break;
case 0xc8: /* SSF format insns */
switch (pinsn[0] & 0xf) {
case 0x2: /* CSST */
While there can be
Re: branch-relative-long fails on s390x host (was: [PATCH] tests/tcg/s390x: Use a different PCRel32 notation in branch-relative-long.c)
On Wed, 2022-05-04 at 12:46 +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 04/05/2022 11.37, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: > > On Wed, 2022-05-04 at 11:14 +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > > > On 04/05/2022 11.07, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2022-05-04 at 09:01 +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > > > > > On 04/05/2022 00.46, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 2022-05-03 at 21:26 +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > > > > > > > On 03/05/2022 11.02, Thomas Huth wrote: > > > > > > > > On 02/05/2022 18.48, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: > > > > > > > > > Binutils >=2.37 and Clang do not accept (. - > > > > > > > > > 0x1) > > > > > > > > > PCRel32 > > > > > > > > > constants. While this looks like a bug that needs > > > > > > > > > fixing, > > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > different notation (-0x1) as a workaround. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reported-by: Thomas Huth > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c | 4 ++-- > > > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c > > > > > > > > > b/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c > > > > > > > > > index 94219afcad..8ce9f1c2e5 100644 > > > > > > > > > --- a/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c > > > > > > > > > +++ b/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c > > > > > > > > > @@ -13,8 +13,8 @@ > > > > > > > > > #_name "_end:\n"); > > > > > > > > > DEFINE_ASM(br_r14, "br %r14"); > > > > > > > > > -DEFINE_ASM(brasl_r0, "brasl %r0,.-0x1"); > > > > > > > > > -DEFINE_ASM(brcl_0xf, "brcl 0xf,.-0x1"); > > > > > > > > > +DEFINE_ASM(brasl_r0, "brasl %r0,-0x1"); > > > > > > > > > +DEFINE_ASM(brcl_0xf, "brcl 0xf,-0x1"); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Works for me, thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I spoke too soon - it compiles fine, and also runs > > > > > > > fine > > > > > > > when I > > > > > > > run it > > > > > > > natively, but when I run it through "qemu-s390x", it > > > > > > > crashes... > > > > > > > does > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > work for you? > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, yes, I just double-checked - it works fine for me. > > > > > > Could you please share the resulting test binary? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, here it is: > > > > > > > > > > https://people.redhat.com/~thuth/data/branch-relative-long > > > > > > > > > > Thomas > > > > > > > > Your binary worked fine for me. > > > > > > > > QEMU commit 2e3408b3cc7de4e87a9adafc8c19bfce3abec947, > > > > x86_64 host, > > > > > > Oh, well, now that you've mentioned it: I was running "make > > > check- > > > tcg" on a > > > s390x host. It works fine on a x86, indeed. So the new problem is > > > likely in > > > the s390x TCG host backend... Richard, could you maybe have a > > > look? > > > > > > Thomas > > > > It worked fine on a s390x host for me as well. > > Weird ... Did you compile qemu-s390x itself with Clang or with GCC? I > just > discovered that the crash also only happens if I compile qemu-s390x > with > Clang - there is no crash when I compile it with GCC. > > > Can this be related to the large mmap() that the test performs? > > It works when I compile the test with GCC instead of Clang - so I > assume > that the problem is somewhere else... > > Thomas > I see, I just used your test with the gcc-built QEMU. With clang-built QEMU it hangs for me on the s390x host.
Re: branch-relative-long fails on s390x host (was: [PATCH] tests/tcg/s390x: Use a different PCRel32 notation in branch-relative-long.c)
On 04/05/2022 11.37, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: On Wed, 2022-05-04 at 11:14 +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: On 04/05/2022 11.07, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: On Wed, 2022-05-04 at 09:01 +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: On 04/05/2022 00.46, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: On Tue, 2022-05-03 at 21:26 +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: On 03/05/2022 11.02, Thomas Huth wrote: On 02/05/2022 18.48, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: Binutils >=2.37 and Clang do not accept (. - 0x1) PCRel32 constants. While this looks like a bug that needs fixing, use a different notation (-0x1) as a workaround. Reported-by: Thomas Huth Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich --- tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c b/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c index 94219afcad..8ce9f1c2e5 100644 --- a/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c +++ b/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c @@ -13,8 +13,8 @@ #_name "_end:\n"); DEFINE_ASM(br_r14, "br %r14"); -DEFINE_ASM(brasl_r0, "brasl %r0,.-0x1"); -DEFINE_ASM(brcl_0xf, "brcl 0xf,.-0x1"); +DEFINE_ASM(brasl_r0, "brasl %r0,-0x1"); +DEFINE_ASM(brcl_0xf, "brcl 0xf,-0x1"); Works for me, thanks! Sorry, I spoke too soon - it compiles fine, and also runs fine when I run it natively, but when I run it through "qemu-s390x", it crashes... does that work for you? Hi, yes, I just double-checked - it works fine for me. Could you please share the resulting test binary? Sure, here it is: https://people.redhat.com/~thuth/data/branch-relative-long Thomas Your binary worked fine for me. QEMU commit 2e3408b3cc7de4e87a9adafc8c19bfce3abec947, x86_64 host, Oh, well, now that you've mentioned it: I was running "make check- tcg" on a s390x host. It works fine on a x86, indeed. So the new problem is likely in the s390x TCG host backend... Richard, could you maybe have a look? Thomas It worked fine on a s390x host for me as well. Weird ... Did you compile qemu-s390x itself with Clang or with GCC? I just discovered that the crash also only happens if I compile qemu-s390x with Clang - there is no crash when I compile it with GCC. Can this be related to the large mmap() that the test performs? It works when I compile the test with GCC instead of Clang - so I assume that the problem is somewhere else... Thomas
Re: branch-relative-long fails on s390x host (was: [PATCH] tests/tcg/s390x: Use a different PCRel32 notation in branch-relative-long.c)
On Wed, 2022-05-04 at 11:14 +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 04/05/2022 11.07, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: > > On Wed, 2022-05-04 at 09:01 +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > > > On 04/05/2022 00.46, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2022-05-03 at 21:26 +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > > > > > On 03/05/2022 11.02, Thomas Huth wrote: > > > > > > On 02/05/2022 18.48, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: > > > > > > > Binutils >=2.37 and Clang do not accept (. - 0x1) > > > > > > > PCRel32 > > > > > > > constants. While this looks like a bug that needs fixing, > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > different notation (-0x1) as a workaround. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reported-by: Thomas Huth > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c | 4 ++-- > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c > > > > > > > b/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c > > > > > > > index 94219afcad..8ce9f1c2e5 100644 > > > > > > > --- a/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c > > > > > > > +++ b/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c > > > > > > > @@ -13,8 +13,8 @@ > > > > > > > #_name "_end:\n"); > > > > > > > DEFINE_ASM(br_r14, "br %r14"); > > > > > > > -DEFINE_ASM(brasl_r0, "brasl %r0,.-0x1"); > > > > > > > -DEFINE_ASM(brcl_0xf, "brcl 0xf,.-0x1"); > > > > > > > +DEFINE_ASM(brasl_r0, "brasl %r0,-0x1"); > > > > > > > +DEFINE_ASM(brcl_0xf, "brcl 0xf,-0x1"); > > > > > > > > > > > > Works for me, thanks! > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I spoke too soon - it compiles fine, and also runs > > > > > fine > > > > > when I > > > > > run it > > > > > natively, but when I run it through "qemu-s390x", it > > > > > crashes... > > > > > does > > > > > that > > > > > work for you? > > > > > > > > Hi, yes, I just double-checked - it works fine for me. > > > > Could you please share the resulting test binary? > > > > > > > > > Sure, here it is: > > > > > > https://people.redhat.com/~thuth/data/branch-relative-long > > > > > > Thomas > > > > Your binary worked fine for me. > > > > QEMU commit 2e3408b3cc7de4e87a9adafc8c19bfce3abec947, > > x86_64 host, > > Oh, well, now that you've mentioned it: I was running "make check- > tcg" on a > s390x host. It works fine on a x86, indeed. So the new problem is > likely in > the s390x TCG host backend... Richard, could you maybe have a look? > > Thomas It worked fine on a s390x host for me as well. Can this be related to the large mmap() that the test performs?
branch-relative-long fails on s390x host (was: [PATCH] tests/tcg/s390x: Use a different PCRel32 notation in branch-relative-long.c)
On 04/05/2022 11.07, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: On Wed, 2022-05-04 at 09:01 +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: On 04/05/2022 00.46, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: On Tue, 2022-05-03 at 21:26 +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: On 03/05/2022 11.02, Thomas Huth wrote: On 02/05/2022 18.48, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: Binutils >=2.37 and Clang do not accept (. - 0x1) PCRel32 constants. While this looks like a bug that needs fixing, use a different notation (-0x1) as a workaround. Reported-by: Thomas Huth Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich --- tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c b/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c index 94219afcad..8ce9f1c2e5 100644 --- a/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c +++ b/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c @@ -13,8 +13,8 @@ #_name "_end:\n"); DEFINE_ASM(br_r14, "br %r14"); -DEFINE_ASM(brasl_r0, "brasl %r0,.-0x1"); -DEFINE_ASM(brcl_0xf, "brcl 0xf,.-0x1"); +DEFINE_ASM(brasl_r0, "brasl %r0,-0x1"); +DEFINE_ASM(brcl_0xf, "brcl 0xf,-0x1"); Works for me, thanks! Sorry, I spoke too soon - it compiles fine, and also runs fine when I run it natively, but when I run it through "qemu-s390x", it crashes... does that work for you? Hi, yes, I just double-checked - it works fine for me. Could you please share the resulting test binary? Sure, here it is: https://people.redhat.com/~thuth/data/branch-relative-long Thomas Your binary worked fine for me. QEMU commit 2e3408b3cc7de4e87a9adafc8c19bfce3abec947, x86_64 host, Oh, well, now that you've mentioned it: I was running "make check-tcg" on a s390x host. It works fine on a x86, indeed. So the new problem is likely in the s390x TCG host backend... Richard, could you maybe have a look? Thomas
Re: [PATCH] tests/tcg/s390x: Use a different PCRel32 notation in branch-relative-long.c
On Wed, 2022-05-04 at 09:01 +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 04/05/2022 00.46, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: > > On Tue, 2022-05-03 at 21:26 +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > > > On 03/05/2022 11.02, Thomas Huth wrote: > > > > On 02/05/2022 18.48, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: > > > > > Binutils >=2.37 and Clang do not accept (. - 0x1) > > > > > PCRel32 > > > > > constants. While this looks like a bug that needs fixing, use > > > > > a > > > > > different notation (-0x1) as a workaround. > > > > > > > > > > Reported-by: Thomas Huth > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich > > > > > --- > > > > > tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c | 4 ++-- > > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c > > > > > b/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c > > > > > index 94219afcad..8ce9f1c2e5 100644 > > > > > --- a/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c > > > > > +++ b/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c > > > > > @@ -13,8 +13,8 @@ > > > > > #_name "_end:\n"); > > > > > DEFINE_ASM(br_r14, "br %r14"); > > > > > -DEFINE_ASM(brasl_r0, "brasl %r0,.-0x1"); > > > > > -DEFINE_ASM(brcl_0xf, "brcl 0xf,.-0x1"); > > > > > +DEFINE_ASM(brasl_r0, "brasl %r0,-0x1"); > > > > > +DEFINE_ASM(brcl_0xf, "brcl 0xf,-0x1"); > > > > > > > > Works for me, thanks! > > > > > > Sorry, I spoke too soon - it compiles fine, and also runs fine > > > when I > > > run it > > > natively, but when I run it through "qemu-s390x", it crashes... > > > does > > > that > > > work for you? > > > > Hi, yes, I just double-checked - it works fine for me. > > Could you please share the resulting test binary? > > > Sure, here it is: > > https://people.redhat.com/~thuth/data/branch-relative-long > > Thomas Your binary worked fine for me. QEMU commit 2e3408b3cc7de4e87a9adafc8c19bfce3abec947, x86_64 host, configured with --target-list=s390x-linux-user.
Re: [PATCH] tests/tcg/s390x: Use a different PCRel32 notation in branch-relative-long.c
On 04/05/2022 00.46, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: On Tue, 2022-05-03 at 21:26 +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: On 03/05/2022 11.02, Thomas Huth wrote: On 02/05/2022 18.48, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: Binutils >=2.37 and Clang do not accept (. - 0x1) PCRel32 constants. While this looks like a bug that needs fixing, use a different notation (-0x1) as a workaround. Reported-by: Thomas Huth Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich --- tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c b/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c index 94219afcad..8ce9f1c2e5 100644 --- a/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c +++ b/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c @@ -13,8 +13,8 @@ #_name "_end:\n"); DEFINE_ASM(br_r14, "br %r14"); -DEFINE_ASM(brasl_r0, "brasl %r0,.-0x1"); -DEFINE_ASM(brcl_0xf, "brcl 0xf,.-0x1"); +DEFINE_ASM(brasl_r0, "brasl %r0,-0x1"); +DEFINE_ASM(brcl_0xf, "brcl 0xf,-0x1"); Works for me, thanks! Sorry, I spoke too soon - it compiles fine, and also runs fine when I run it natively, but when I run it through "qemu-s390x", it crashes... does that work for you? Hi, yes, I just double-checked - it works fine for me. Could you please share the resulting test binary? Sure, here it is: https://people.redhat.com/~thuth/data/branch-relative-long Thomas
Re: [PATCH] tests/tcg/s390x: Use a different PCRel32 notation in branch-relative-long.c
On Tue, 2022-05-03 at 21:26 +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 03/05/2022 11.02, Thomas Huth wrote: > > On 02/05/2022 18.48, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: > > > Binutils >=2.37 and Clang do not accept (. - 0x1) PCRel32 > > > constants. While this looks like a bug that needs fixing, use a > > > different notation (-0x1) as a workaround. > > > > > > Reported-by: Thomas Huth > > > Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich > > > --- > > > tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c | 4 ++-- > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c > > > b/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c > > > index 94219afcad..8ce9f1c2e5 100644 > > > --- a/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c > > > +++ b/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c > > > @@ -13,8 +13,8 @@ > > > #_name "_end:\n"); > > > DEFINE_ASM(br_r14, "br %r14"); > > > -DEFINE_ASM(brasl_r0, "brasl %r0,.-0x1"); > > > -DEFINE_ASM(brcl_0xf, "brcl 0xf,.-0x1"); > > > +DEFINE_ASM(brasl_r0, "brasl %r0,-0x1"); > > > +DEFINE_ASM(brcl_0xf, "brcl 0xf,-0x1"); > > > > Works for me, thanks! > > Sorry, I spoke too soon - it compiles fine, and also runs fine when I > run it > natively, but when I run it through "qemu-s390x", it crashes... does > that > work for you? Hi, yes, I just double-checked - it works fine for me. Could you please share the resulting test binary?
Re: [PATCH] tests/tcg/s390x: Use a different PCRel32 notation in branch-relative-long.c
On 03/05/2022 11.02, Thomas Huth wrote: On 02/05/2022 18.48, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: Binutils >=2.37 and Clang do not accept (. - 0x1) PCRel32 constants. While this looks like a bug that needs fixing, use a different notation (-0x1) as a workaround. Reported-by: Thomas Huth Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich --- tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c b/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c index 94219afcad..8ce9f1c2e5 100644 --- a/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c +++ b/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c @@ -13,8 +13,8 @@ #_name "_end:\n"); DEFINE_ASM(br_r14, "br %r14"); -DEFINE_ASM(brasl_r0, "brasl %r0,.-0x1"); -DEFINE_ASM(brcl_0xf, "brcl 0xf,.-0x1"); +DEFINE_ASM(brasl_r0, "brasl %r0,-0x1"); +DEFINE_ASM(brcl_0xf, "brcl 0xf,-0x1"); Works for me, thanks! Sorry, I spoke too soon - it compiles fine, and also runs fine when I run it natively, but when I run it through "qemu-s390x", it crashes... does that work for you? Thomas
Re: [PATCH] tests/tcg/s390x: Use a different PCRel32 notation in branch-relative-long.c
On 02/05/2022 18.48, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: Binutils >=2.37 and Clang do not accept (. - 0x1) PCRel32 constants. While this looks like a bug that needs fixing, use a different notation (-0x1) as a workaround. Reported-by: Thomas Huth Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich --- tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c b/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c index 94219afcad..8ce9f1c2e5 100644 --- a/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c +++ b/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c @@ -13,8 +13,8 @@ #_name "_end:\n"); DEFINE_ASM(br_r14, "br %r14"); -DEFINE_ASM(brasl_r0, "brasl %r0,.-0x1"); -DEFINE_ASM(brcl_0xf, "brcl 0xf,.-0x1"); +DEFINE_ASM(brasl_r0, "brasl %r0,-0x1"); +DEFINE_ASM(brcl_0xf, "brcl 0xf,-0x1"); Works for me, thanks! Tested-by: Thomas Huth and queued to my s390x-next branch: https://gitlab.com/thuth/qemu/-/commits/s390x-next/ Thomas
[PATCH] tests/tcg/s390x: Use a different PCRel32 notation in branch-relative-long.c
Binutils >=2.37 and Clang do not accept (. - 0x1) PCRel32
constants. While this looks like a bug that needs fixing, use a
different notation (-0x1) as a workaround.
Reported-by: Thomas Huth
Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich
---
tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c
b/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c
index 94219afcad..8ce9f1c2e5 100644
--- a/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c
+++ b/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c
@@ -13,8 +13,8 @@
#_name "_end:\n");
DEFINE_ASM(br_r14, "br %r14");
-DEFINE_ASM(brasl_r0, "brasl %r0,.-0x1");
-DEFINE_ASM(brcl_0xf, "brcl 0xf,.-0x1");
+DEFINE_ASM(brasl_r0, "brasl %r0,-0x1");
+DEFINE_ASM(brcl_0xf, "brcl 0xf,-0x1");
struct test {
const char *code;
--
2.35.1
