This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, ARM] Don't pull in unwinder for 64-bit division routines
- From: Michael Hope <michael dot hope at linaro dot org>
- To: Julian Brown <julian at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: ramrad01 at arm dot com, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "ian at airs dot com" <ian at airs dot com>, Richard Earnshaw <Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com>, Ye Joey <joey dot ye dot cc at gmail dot com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:26:58 +1200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, ARM] Don't pull in unwinder for 64-bit division routines
- References: <20120720111527.16dea84e@octopus> <20120724132708.49bc2afc@octopus> <502D4274.9070002@arm.com> <20120816202951.3d8276ca@octopus>
On 17 August 2012 07:29, Julian Brown <julian@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 19:56:52 +0100
> Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramrad01@arm.com> wrote:
>
>> On 07/24/12 13:27, Julian Brown wrote:
>> > On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:15:27 +0100
>> > Julian Brown <julian@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Anyway: this revised version of the patch removes the strange
>> >> libgcc Makefile-fragment changes, the equivalent of which have
>> >> since been incorporated into mainline GCC now anyway, so the patch
>> >> is somewhat more straightforward than it was previously.
>> >
>> > Joey Ye contacted me offlist and suggested that the t-divmod-ef
>> > fragment might be better integrated into t-bpabi instead. Doing that
>> > makes the patch somewhat smaller/cleaner.
>> >
>> > Minimally re-tested, looks OK.
>>
>> The original submission makes no mention of testing ? The ARM
>> specific portions look OK to me modulo no regressions.
>
> Thanks -- I'm sure I did test the patch, but just omitted to mention
> that fact in the mail :-O. We've also been carrying a version of this
> patch in our local source base for many years now.
Hi Julian. The test case fails on arm-linux-gnueabi:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-08/msg02100.html
FAIL: gcc.target/arm/div64-unwinding.c execution test
The test aborts as &_Unwind_RaiseException is not null. _divdi3.o
itself looks fine and no longer pulls in the unwinder so I assume
something else in the environment is. I've put the binaries up at
http://people.linaro.org/~michaelh/incoming/div64-unwinding.exe and
http://people.linaro.org/~michaelh/incoming/_divdi3.o if that helps.
-- Michael