On Oct 9, 2017, at 12:05 PM, Qing Zhao <qing.z...@oracle.com> 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.
More testing on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, bootstrapped and gcc testing, No any
regression.
>
> Is my patch Okay?
>
> thanks.
Qing
