This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [Patch,testsuite,AVR]: target-supports.exp: AVR does not support TLS


Rainer Orth schrieb:
> Georg-Johann Lay <avr@gjlay.de> writes:
> 
>> For example, after updating trunk to 179738,
>>
>> (gdb) set args  -fpreprocessed tls-1.i -quiet -dumpbase tls-1.c -mmcu=atmega128
>> -auxbase tls-1 -gdwarf-2 -O3 -O2 -version -o tls-1.s
>> (gdb) cd ~/test
>> (gdb) r
>> GNU C (GCC) version 4.7.0 20111010 (experimental) (avr)
>>         compiled by GNU C version 4.3.2 [gcc-4_3-branch revision 141291], GMP
>> version 5.0.1, MPFR version 3.0.0-p8, MPC version 0.8.2
>> GGC heuristics: --param ggc-min-expand=30 --param ggc-min-heapsize=4096
>> GNU C (GCC) version 4.7.0 20111010 (experimental) (avr)
>> 	compiled by GNU C version 4.3.2 [gcc-4_3-branch revision 141291], GMP version
>> 5.0.1, MPFR version 3.0.0-p8, MPC version 0.8.2
>> GGC heuristics: --param ggc-min-expand=30 --param ggc-min-heapsize=4096
>> Compiler executable checksum: 4e4900df2fe6cd3a5bd440dbb3a30bf2
>>
>> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
>> 0x0864e398 in set_is_used (var=0xb7dd3600) at
>> ../../../gcc.gnu.org/trunk/gcc/tree-flow-inline.h:562
>> (gdb) bt
>> #0  0x0864e398 in set_is_used (var=0xb7dd3600) at
>> ../../../gcc.gnu.org/trunk/gcc/tree-flow-inline.h:562
>> #1  0x0864e256 in mark_all_vars_used_1 (tp=0xb7dc97c4,
>> walk_subtrees=0xbfffe004, data=0x0) at
>> ../../../gcc.gnu.org/trunk/gcc/tree-ssa-live.c:379
> 
> This has nothing to do with AVR, but is PR middle-end/50638.  It breaks
> TLS on all emutls targets.  A patch has been posted and approved, but
> apparently not yet installed.

Thanks for the notice.
The GCC documentation says that TLS need support of a dynamic linker. It's
unlikely there will ever be a dynamic linker on a device with some tens k for
code and some k of RAM?

> So please be more careful investigating testsuite failures before
> XFAILing or skipping them.

Sorry, experience is that many test cases are not well written to parametrize
for small targets and it's merely impossible to catch up with hundreds of test
case fall out from them and to see the real problems.

Johann

> 
> 	Rainer
> 


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]