> On Oct 9, 2017, at 11:27 AM, Qing Zhao <qing.z...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 9, 2017, at 5:33 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
>> <richard.earns...@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 06/10/17 20:56, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>> Thanks a lot for Wilco’s help on this bug.
>>>
>>> Yes, Aarch64 does NOT do anything wrong.
>>>
>>> The implementation of __builtin_update_setjmp_buf is not correct. It takes
>>> a pointer
>>> as an operand and treats the Mode of the pointer as Pmode, which is not
>>> correct.
>>> a conversion from ptr_mode to Pmode is needed for this pointer.
>>>
>>> bootstrapped on aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu.
>>> testing on aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu is running.
>>>
>>
>> This is more believable for AArch64, but we need to be careful here. I
>> think this needs testing on at least one other target that has a
>> ilp32-on-64-bit ABI, eg x86_64's x32 ABI.
>
> I just built the latest upstream GCC on x86_64 Linux. and use it to compile
> the testing case in PR80295 with the following options:
>
> [qinzhao@qzh-ol6-test 80295]$ cat t.c
> void f (void *b) { __builtin_update_setjmp_buf (b); }
> [qinzhao@qzh-ol6-test 80295]$ sh t
> /home/qinzhao/Install/latest/bin/gcc -m32 t.c
>
> it compiles successfully on x86_64. no similar issue as aarch64.
>
> DId I use the correct option on X86 (i.e -m32)?
I also tried -mx32, the compilation had no issue.
With the latest GCC + my patch, on X86, the testing case still has No any
issue with -m32 or -mx32.
my testing on aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu has finished, no any regression.
Is my patch Okay?
thanks.
Qing
