Re: [PATCH] aarch64：Add an error message in large code model for ilp32 [PR94577]
Christophe Lyon
christophe.lyon@linaro.org
Wed Apr 22 13:36:50 GMT 2020
On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 at 15:16, duanbo (C) <duanbo3@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Thank you for your suggestions.
> I have adjust the testcases and used this command to test .
> "runtest --tool gcc --tool_opts -mabi=ilp32 aarch64.exp= reload-valid-spoff.c"
>
> The results of those tests changed from unexpected failures to unsupported.
> Attached please find the v5 patch.
> Any suggestions.
>
Looks good to me, but I'm not a maintainer.
Thanks,
Christophe
> Thanks,
> Duanbo
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christophe Lyon [mailto:christophe.lyon@linaro.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 2:41 PM
> > To: duanbo (C) <duanbo3@huawei.com>; GCC Patches <gcc-
> > patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] aarch64：Add an error message in large code model for
> > ilp32 [PR94577]
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > After this patch, a few tests are failing when running the testsuite with -
> > mabi=ilp32:
> > gcc.target/aarch64/pr63304_1.c (test for excess errors)
> > gcc.target/aarch64/pr63304_1.c scan-assembler-times adrp 6
> > gcc.target/aarch64/pr70120-2.c (test for excess errors)
> > gcc.target/aarch64/pr94530.c (test for excess errors)
> > gcc.target/aarch64/reload-valid-spoff.c (test for excess errors)
> >
> > All of them fail because of the new error message: would you mind adjusting
> > the tests?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Christophe
> >
> > On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 16:10, Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > "duanbo (C)" <duanbo3@huawei.com> writes:
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: Richard Sandiford [mailto:richard.sandiford@arm.com]
> > > >> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 10:42 PM
> > > >> To: duanbo (C) <duanbo3@huawei.com>
> > > >> Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
> > > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] aarch64：Add an error message in large code
> > > >> model for
> > > >> ilp32 [PR94577]
> > > >>
> > > >> "duanbo (C)" <duanbo3@huawei.com> writes:
> > > >> > Hi
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> >> From: Richard Sandiford [mailto:richard.sandiford@arm.com]
> > > >> >> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2020 9:38 PM
> > > >> >> To: duanbo (C) <duanbo3@huawei.com>
> > > >> >> Cc: Wilco Dijkstra <Wilco.Dijkstra@arm.com>;
> > > >> >> gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> > > >> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH PR94577] [AArch64] ：Add an error message in
> > > >> >> large code model for ilp32
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> "duanbo (C)" <duanbo3@huawei.com> writes:
> > > >> >> > Thank you for your suggestions.
> > > >> >> > I have modified accordingly and a full test has been carried,
> > > >> >> > no new failure
> > > >> >> witnessed.
> > > >> >> > Attached please find the new patch which has been adjusted to
> > > >> >> > be suitable
> > > >> >> for git am.
> > > >> >> > Does the v2 patch look better ?
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > Thanks,
> > > >> >> > Duan bo
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > -----Original Message-----
> > > >> >> > From: Wilco Dijkstra [mailto:Wilco.Dijkstra@arm.com]
> > > >> >> > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 4:40 AM
> > > >> >> > To: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; duanbo (C)
> > > >> >> > <duanbo3@huawei.com>
> > > >> >> > Subject: Re: [PATCH PR00002] aarch64：Add an error message in
> > > >> >> > large code model for ilp32
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > Hi Duanbo,
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> This is a simple fix for pr94577.
> > > >> >> >> The option -mabi=ilp32 should not be used in large code model.
> > > >> >> >> Like x86,
> > > >> >> using -mx32 and -mcmodel=large together will result in an error
> > message.
> > > >> >> >> On aarch64, there is no error message for this option conflict.
> > > >> >> >> A solution to this problem can be found in the attached patch.
> > > >> >> >> Bootstrap and tested on aarch64 Linux platform. No new
> > > >> >> >> regression
> > > >> >> witnessed.
> > > >> >> >> Any suggestion?
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > Thanks for your patch, more than 4GB doesn't make any sense
> > > >> >> > with
> > > >> >> > ILP32
> > > >> >> indeed.
> > > >> >> > A few suggestions:
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > It would be good to also update the documentation for
> > > >> >> > -mcmodel=large to
> > > >> >> state it is incompatible with -fpic, -fPIC and -mabi=ilp32.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > The patch adds a another switch statement on mcmodel that
> > > >> >> > ignores the
> > > >> >> previous processing done (which may changes the selected
> > > >> >> mcmodel). It would be safer and more concise to use one switch
> > > >> >> at the top level and in each case use an if statement to handle the
> > special cases.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > A few minor nitpics:
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > + PR target/94577
> > > >> >> > + * gcc.target/aarch64/pr94577.c : New test
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > Just like comments, there should be a '.' at the end of changelog
> > entries.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > AFAICT the format isn't exactly specified, but the email
> > > >> >> > header should be
> > > >> >> like:
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > [PATCH][AArch64] PR94577: Add an error message in large code
> > > >> >> > model for
> > > >> >> > ilp32
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > Sometimes the PR number is also placed in brackets.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > Cheers,
> > > >> >> > Wilco
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > From feb16a5e5d35d4f632e1be10ce0ac4f4c3505d22 Mon Sep 17
> > > >> 00:00:00
> > > >> >> 2001
> > > >> >> > From: Duan bo <duanbo3@huawei.com>
> > > >> >> > Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 05:19:31 -0400
> > > >> >> > Subject: [PATCH] aarch64: Add an error message in large code
> > > >> >> > model for
> > > >> >> > ilp32 [PR94577]
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > The option -mabi=ilp32 should not be used in large code model.
> > > >> >> > An error message is added for the option conflict.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > 2020-04-15 Duan bo <duanbo3@huawei.com>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > PR target/94577
> > > >> >> > * config/aarch64/aarch64.c: Add an error message for option
> > conflict.
> > > >> >> > * doc/invoke.texi (-mcmodel=large): Mention that
> > > >> >> > -mcmodel=large
> > > >> >> is
> > > >> >> > incompatible with -fpic, -fPIC and -mabi=ilp32.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > 2020-04-15 Duan bo <duanbo3@huawei.com>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > PR target/94577
> > > >> >> > * gcc.target/aarch64/pr94577.c: New test.
> > > >> >> > ---
> > > >> >> > gcc/ChangeLog | 7 ++++
> > > >> >> > gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c | 41 ++++++++++++----------
> > > >> >> > gcc/doc/invoke.texi | 4 ++-
> > > >> >> > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog | 5 +++
> > > >> >> > gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/pr94577.c | 10 ++++++
> > > >> >> > 5 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) create
> > > >> >> > mode
> > > >> >> > 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/pr94577.c
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog b/gcc/ChangeLog index
> > > >> >> > 3c6a45e8fe7..c2f1fcb7bff 100644
> > > >> >> > --- a/gcc/ChangeLog
> > > >> >> > +++ b/gcc/ChangeLog
> > > >> >> > @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
> > > >> >> > +2020-04-15 Duan bo <duanbo3@huawei.com>
> > > >> >> > +
> > > >> >> > + PR target/94577
> > > >> >> > + * config/aarch64/aarch64.c: Add an error message for option
> > conflict.
> > > >> >> > + * doc/invoke.texi (-mcmodel=large): Mention that
> > > >> >> > + -mcmodel=large
> > > >> >> is
> > > >> >> > + incompatible with -fpic, -fPIC and -mabi=ilp32.
> > > >> >> > +
> > > >> >> > 2020-04-14 Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > PR target/94584
> > > >> >> > diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
> > > >> >> > b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c index 4af562a81ea..f8a38bd899a
> > > >> >> > 100644
> > > >> >> > --- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
> > > >> >> > +++ b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
> > > >> >> > @@ -14707,32 +14707,35 @@ aarch64_init_expanders (void)
> > > >> >> > static void initialize_aarch64_code_model (struct gcc_options *opts)
> > {
> > > >> >> > - if (opts->x_flag_pic)
> > > >> >> > + aarch64_cmodel = opts->x_aarch64_cmodel_var;
> > > >> >> > + switch (opts->x_aarch64_cmodel_var)
> > > >> >> > {
> > > >> >> > - switch (opts->x_aarch64_cmodel_var)
> > > >> >> > - {
> > > >> >> > - case AARCH64_CMODEL_TINY:
> > > >> >> > + case AARCH64_CMODEL_TINY:
> > > >> >> > + if (opts->x_flag_pic)
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Minor formatting nit, but: the case statement should be indented
> > > >> >> by the same amount as the "{" for the switch statement. The
> > > >> >> code after the case statement should be indented by two further
> > columns.
> > > >> >> (The formatting is wrong in the existing code too, which is
> > > >> >> probably what confused things.)
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > aarch64_cmodel = AARCH64_CMODEL_TINY_PIC;
> > > >> >> > - break;
> > > >> >> > - case AARCH64_CMODEL_SMALL:
> > > >> >> > + break;
> > > >> >> > + case AARCH64_CMODEL_SMALL:
> > > >> >> > + if (opts->x_flag_pic)
> > > >> >> > + {
> > > >> >> > #ifdef HAVE_AS_SMALL_PIC_RELOCS
> > > >> >> > - aarch64_cmodel = (flag_pic == 2
> > > >> >> > - ? AARCH64_CMODEL_SMALL_PIC
> > > >> >> > - : AARCH64_CMODEL_SMALL_SPIC);
> > > >> >> > + aarch64_cmodel = (flag_pic == 2
> > > >> >> > + ? AARCH64_CMODEL_SMALL_PIC
> > > >> >> > + : AARCH64_CMODEL_SMALL_SPIC);
> > > >> >> > #else
> > > >> >> > - aarch64_cmodel = AARCH64_CMODEL_SMALL_PIC;
> > > >> >> > + aarch64_cmodel = AARCH64_CMODEL_SMALL_PIC;
> > > >> >> > #endif
> > > >> >> > - break;
> > > >> >> > - case AARCH64_CMODEL_LARGE:
> > > >> >> > + }
> > > >> >> > + break;
> > > >> >> > + case AARCH64_CMODEL_LARGE:
> > > >> >> > + if (opts->x_flag_pic)
> > > >> >> > sorry ("code model %qs with %<-f%s%>", "large",
> > > >> >> > opts->x_flag_pic > 1 ? "PIC" : "pic");
> > > >> >> > - break;
> > > >> >> > - default:
> > > >> >> > - gcc_unreachable ();
> > > >> >> > - }
> > > >> >> > - }
> > > >> >> > - else
> > > >> >> > - aarch64_cmodel = opts->x_aarch64_cmodel_var;
> > > >> >> > + if (opts->x_aarch64_abi == AARCH64_ABI_ILP32)
> > > >> >> > + sorry ("code model large not supported in ilp32
> > > >> >> > + mode");
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> I think "large" should be quoted here, like it is in the pic/PIC message:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> sorry ("code model %<large%> not supported in ilp32 mode");
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> or:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> sorry ("code model %qs not supported in ilp32 mode",
> > > >> >> "large");
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> The second's probably better. Each message format string
> > > >> >> creates more work for translators, and with the second form,
> > > >> >> there's more chance that the format can be reused elsewhere.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > + break;
> > > >> >> > + default:
> > > >> >> > + gcc_unreachable ();
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> This is pre-existing, but in cases like this, it's probably
> > > >> >> better to leave out the default case. That way bootstrap will
> > > >> >> fail if a new code
> > > >> model is added.
> > > >>
> > > >> My quoting made it very unclear, sorry, but here I meant we should
> > > >> remove the whole "default:" case. Of course, that triggers exactly
> > > >> the kind of bootstrap failure I mentioned:
> > > >>
> > > >> error: enumeration value ‘AARCH64_CMODEL_TINY_PIC’ not handled in
> > > >> switch [-Werror=switch]
> > > >> error: enumeration value ‘AARCH64_CMODEL_SMALL_PIC’ not handled
> > in
> > > >> switch [-Werror=switch]
> > > >> error: enumeration value ‘AARCH64_CMODEL_SMALL_SPIC’ not
> > handled in
> > > >> switch [-Werror=switch]
> > > >>
> > > >> I think it would be good to have:
> > > >>
> > > >> case AARCH64_CMODEL_TINY_PIC:
> > > >> case AARCH64_CMODEL_SMALL_PIC:
> > > >> case AARCH64_CMODEL_SMALL_SPIC:
> > > >> gcc_unreachable ();
> > > >> }
> > > >>
> > > >> and no "default:" case.
> > > >>
> > > >> (When I was reviewing the original patch and existing code, it
> > > >> wasn't obvious to me why we needed the default: case and
> > > >> gcc_unreachable, but that was probably just me being dumb. :-)
> > > >> Listing the individual case statements makes things more explicit.
> > > >> It also means we'll get warnings/ errors if we forget to update the
> > > >> switch statement for a new code model.)
> > > >>
> > > >> Can you retest and repost with that change? Sorry for the hassle.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> Richard
> > > >
> > > > Sorry for misunderstanding what you mean.
> > > > I have made a new patch and carried a full test, no new failure witnessed.
> > > > Attached please find the v4 patch.
> > >
> > > Thanks, pushed to master.
> > >
> > > Richard
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list