[SFN+LVU+IEPM v4 9/9] [IEPM] Introduce inline entry point markers

[Jeff Law]

On 02/09/2018 03:34 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Feb  9, 2018, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 02/08/2018 08:53 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 01:21:27AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>>> Here's what I checked in, right after the LVU patch.
>>>>
>>>> [IEPM] Introduce inline entry point markers
>>>
>>> One of these two patches breaks ppc64le bootstrap with the assembler
>>> complaining "Error: view number mismatch" when compiling
>>> libdecnumber.
>>>
>> I've just passed along a similar failure (.i, .s and command line
>> options) to Alex for ppc64 (be) building glibc.
> 
> This fixes at least the testcase Jeff provided me with.  I'm going ahead
> and checking it in as obvious.  I suppose we might need more of these,
> on this and other ports, if they have been sloppy about zero-length
> pseudo insns :-(
> 
> Would you guys please let me know whether you still see a problem, if
> you get a chance to respin?  I was just about to crash in bed when I saw
> your email.
> 
> When I get back up, I'll build the latest binutils release on ppc64,
> ppc64el and aarch64, and then bootstrap gcc with it.  I should have done
> that when I broadened my testing of the SFN+LVU+IEPM patchset to those 
> platforms, but I didn't realize I was failing to test them with an
> assembler with view support, doh!  Sorry about that.
No need for the binutils+gcc bootstrapping test when you get up.  Mine's
already run.  ppc, ppc64, ppc64le, aarch64 all covered.

My tester does have half-dozen or so other failures overnight, but I
haven't looked at them yet.  If any look similar I'll first check if
we're dealing with a zero length pseudo insn (I wouldn't be surprised if
blockage insns are consistently wrong on that).


jeff