On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 05:16:33PM +0100, Jiong Wang wrote: > > James Greenhalgh writes: > > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 01:42:35PM +0100, Jiong Wang wrote: > >> > >> Jiong Wang writes: > >> > >> > Alexander Monakov writes: > >> > > >> >>> Attachment is the patch which repair -fno-plt support for AArch64. > >> >>> > >> >>> aarch64_is_noplt_call_p will only be true if: > >> >>> > >> >>> * gcc is generating position independent code. > >> >>> * function symbol has declaration. > >> >>> * either -fno-plt or "(no_plt)" attribute specified. > >> >>> * it's a external function. > >> >>> > >> >>> OK for trunk? > >> >>> > >> >>> 2015-07-16 Jiong Wang <jiong.w...@arm.com> > >> >>> > >> >>> gcc/ > >> >>> * config/aarch64/aarch64-protos.h (aarch64_is_noplt_call_p): New > >> >>> declaration. > >> >>> * config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_is_noplt_call_p): New function. > >> >>> * config/aarch64/aarch64.md (call_value_symbol): Check noplt > >> >>> scenarios. > >> >>> (call_symbol): Ditto. > >> >> > >> >> Shouldn't the same treatment be applied to tailcall > >> >> (sibcall_{,value_}symbol) > >> >> patterns? I guess it could be done as a followup patch, but would be > >> >> nice if > >> >> that isn't forgotten. > >> > > >> > Thanks for the remaind, that will be done as a followup patch.
Hi Jiong, The new testcases introduced in this and the related patch are failing for me on aarch64-none-elf: aarch64-none-elf NA->FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/noplt_1.c scan-assembler NA->FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/noplt_2.c scan-assembler-times NA->FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/noplt_3.c scan-assembler-times For this invocation: .../build/obj/gcc2/gcc/xgcc -B.../build/obj/gcc2/gcc/ .../src/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/noplt_1.c -fno-diagnostics-show-caret -fdiagnostics-color=never -O2 -fno-plt -fpic -S -mcmodel=small -o noplt_1.s I get this code generation for the small memory model: foo: stp x29, x30, [sp, -32]! adrp x1, _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ add x29, sp, 0 str x19, [sp, 16] mov w19, w0 ldr x0, [x1, #:gotpage_lo15:bar] blr x0 ldr w0, [x0, w19, sxtw 2] ldr x19, [sp, 16] ldp x29, x30, [sp], 32 ret .size foo, .-foo Which uses a different relocation. Did you intend for these tests to be run with -fPIC -fno-plt rather than -fpic -fno-plt, or does this indicate a bug? Thanks, James