Re: Fwd: [PING 2][PATCH] libgcc: Add CFI directives to the soft floating point support code for ARM

[Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana dot radhakrishnan at arm dot com>]

On 13/05/15 17:37, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> On 12/05/15 14:01, Martin Galvan wrote:
> > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 5:49 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
> > <ramana.radhakrishnan@arm.com> wrote:
> > > That's what I mean when I say email clients "munged it" : email
> > > clients and
> > > / or some popular email servers appear to end up munging white spaces
> > > and
> > > patches don't apply cleanly.
> > >
> > > So, no it doesn't work - once you've sent it through your email client /
> > > server. I am unable to apply the patch as it stands today either
> > > taking the
> > > raw text from the gcc-patches archive or from your email message in my
> > > inbox. It's not like line endings and things have been munged but every
> > > whitespace / tab is in trouble here.
> > >
> > > Please send it back as an attachment if you want me to apply it.
> >
> > Oh, I see! Sorry for that, I thought the problem was on my side.
> > Here's the patch, it's the cfi.patch file.
>
>
> I'm not sure what's going on here and couldn't figure out what was going
> wrong in the 20 minutes I spent on it just now.


Bah, I must be going blind.

> @@ -53,11 +57,13 @@
>
>  ARM_FUNC_START negdf2
>  ARM_FUNC_ALIAS aeabi_dneg negdf2
> +    CFI_START_FUNCTION
>
>      @ flip sign bit
>      eor xh, xh, #0x80000000

Either the mail server you are using or the source repository you have 
has replaced tabs with spaces, the eor here has a tab in the sources 
between eor and xh. Thus the patch is malformed according to the 
sources. I suspect that's the reason why all the other hunks are not 
applying.

Before reposting -

0. Please take care of the issue I mentioned in the previous email .

1. Please mail the patch so created to yourself on a different account 
and applying the patch you receive on pristine sources. Identify a mail 
server that you can use to send emails to lists that don't munge patches 
in this manner.

2. Please test such a tree and ensure no regressions in a run of the GCC 
testsuite.

3. Post the patch back to gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org from the mail server 
that doesn't munge patches in this manner. I'll review it again then.

Thanks,
Ramana




>      RET
>
> +    CFI_END_FUNCTION
>      FUNC_END aeabi_dneg
>      FUNC_END negdf2







> Applying the patch downloaded from 2 different inboxes still gives me
> the same result.
>
> $> patch -p1 --dry-run < /work/cfi.patch
> checking file libgcc/config/arm/ieee754-df.S
> Hunk #2 FAILED at 57.
> Hunk #3 succeeded at 70 with fuzz 2.
> Hunk #4 FAILED at 86.
> Hunk #5 FAILED at 153.
> Hunk #6 FAILED at 418.
> Hunk #7 FAILED at 425.
> Hunk #8 FAILED at 440.
> Hunk #9 FAILED at 462.
> Hunk #10 FAILED at 485.
> Hunk #11 FAILED at 555.
> Hunk #12 FAILED at 566.
> Hunk #13 FAILED at 601.
> Hunk #14 FAILED at 653.
> Hunk #15 FAILED at 720.
> Hunk #16 FAILED at 868.
> Hunk #17 FAILED at 1057.
> Hunk #18 FAILED at 1068.
> Hunk #19 FAILED at 1082.
> Hunk #20 FAILED at 1090.
> Hunk #21 FAILED at 1122.
> Hunk #22 FAILED at 1133.
> Hunk #23 succeeded at 1145 with fuzz 2.
> Hunk #24 FAILED at 1155.
> Hunk #25 FAILED at 1168.
> Hunk #26 FAILED at 1228.
> Hunk #27 succeeded at 1236 with fuzz 2.
> Hunk #28 FAILED at 1254.
> Hunk #29 succeeded at 1263 with fuzz 2.
> Hunk #30 FAILED at 1297.
> Hunk #31 succeeded at 1306 with fuzz 2.
> Hunk #32 FAILED at 1336.
> Hunk #33 succeeded at 1345 with fuzz 2.
> Hunk #34 FAILED at 1410.
> 27 out of 34 hunks FAILED
> checking file libgcc/config/arm/ieee754-sf.S
> Hunk #1 FAILED at 31.
> Hunk #2 succeeded at 49 with fuzz 2.
> Hunk #3 FAILED at 285.
> Hunk #4 FAILED at 293.
> Hunk #5 FAILED at 317.
> Hunk #6 succeeded at 324 with fuzz 2.
> Hunk #7 FAILED at 411.
> Hunk #8 succeeded at 422 with fuzz 2.
> Hunk #9 FAILED at 457.
> Hunk #10 FAILED at 468.
> Hunk #11 FAILED at 621.
> Hunk #12 FAILED at 761.
> Hunk #13 FAILED at 785.
> Hunk #14 FAILED at 799.
> Hunk #15 FAILED at 807.
> Hunk #16 FAILED at 826.
> Hunk #17 FAILED at 835.
> Hunk #18 succeeded at 847 with fuzz 2.
> Hunk #19 FAILED at 860.
> Hunk #20 FAILED at 869.
> Hunk #21 FAILED at 927.
> Hunk #22 succeeded at 935 with fuzz 2.
> Hunk #23 FAILED at 952.
> Hunk #24 succeeded at 961 with fuzz 2.
> Hunk #25 FAILED at 995.
> Hunk #26 succeeded at 1004 with fuzz 2.
> Hunk #27 FAILED at 1034.
> 20 out of 27 hunks FAILED
> checking file libgcc/config/arm/lib1funcs.S
>
>
>
> > @@ -1149,12 +1250,16 @@ ARM_FUNC_START aeabi_cdrcmple
> >      mov r3, ip
> >      b   6f
> >
> > -ARM_FUNC_START aeabi_cdcmpeq
> > +; ARM_FUNC_START aeabi_cdcmpeq
> >  ARM_FUNC_ALIAS aeabi_cdcmple aeabi_cdcmpeq
>
>
> There appears  to be a stray `;' there. How has this been tested ?
>
> >      @ The status-returning routines are required to preserve all
> >      @ registers except ip, lr, and cpsr.
> >  6:  do_push {r0, lr}
> > +    .cfi_adjust_cfa_offset 8  @ CFA is now sp + previousOffset + 8.
> > +    .cfi_rel_offset r0, 0     @ Previous r0 is saved at sp.
> > +    .cfi_rel_offset lr, 4     @ Previous lr is saved at sp + 4.
> > +
> >      ARM_CALL cmpdf2
> >      @ Set the Z flag correctly, and the C flag unconditionally.
> >      cmp r0, #0
>
>
> Can you please generate a diff using svn diff from a pristine checkout
> of the sources, please and resend it as an attachment, making sure you
> test this properly with a regression run.
>
> regards
> Ramana