This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] powerpc: fix ifunc-sel.h with GCC 6
- From: "Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho" <tuliom at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: Aurelien Jarno <aurelien at aurel32 dot net>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>
- Cc:
- Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 11:44:12 -0300
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: fix ifunc-sel.h with GCC 6
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1469093774-25485-1-git-send-email-aurelien@aurel32.net> <874m7ix4py.fsf@totoro.br.ibm.com> <20160802104333.GA427@aurel32.net>
Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net> writes:
> On 2016-07-21 14:48, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho wrote:
>> Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net> writes:
>>
>> > On 32-bit PowerPC GCC 6 always saves the PIC register on the stack in
>> > the prologue and adjust the stack in the epilogue. It is therefore not
>> > possible anymore to just exit the function in the inline asm code,
>> > otherwise it corrupts the stack pointer. This causes the following tests
>> > to fail when using GCC 6:
>> >
>> > FAIL: elf/ifuncmain1
>> > FAIL: elf/ifuncmain1pic
>> > FAIL: elf/ifuncmain1picstatic
>> > FAIL: elf/ifuncmain1pie
>> > FAIL: elf/ifuncmain1staticpic
>> > FAIL: elf/ifuncmain1staticpie
>> > FAIL: elf/ifuncmain1vis
>> > FAIL: elf/ifuncmain1vispic
>> > FAIL: elf/ifuncmain1vispie
>> > FAIL: elf/ifuncmain2pic
>> > FAIL: elf/ifuncmain2picstatic
>> > FAIL: elf/ifuncmain3
>> > FAIL: elf/ifuncmain4picstatic
>> > FAIL: elf/ifuncmain5
>> > FAIL: elf/ifuncmain5picstatic
>> > FAIL: elf/ifuncmain5staticpic
>> >
>> > The solution is to replace the beqlr instructions by a beq to the end
>> > of the inline asm code. This fixes all the above failures.
>> >
>> > ChangeLog:
>> > * sysdeps/powerpc/ifunc-sel.h (ifunc_sel): Replace beqlr instructions
>> > by beq instructions jumping to the end of the function.
>>
>> I'd prefer to remove this file.
>>
>> Alan, do we still need this file?
>
> Now that 2.25 is open for development, what should we do? I think we can
> get the patch in, and try to remove this file in a second step.
I agree. As Alan explained, we still need it.
Thanks!
--
Tulio Magno