On 02/09/2018 03:34 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Feb 9, 2018, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On 02/08/2018 08:53 PM, Alan Modra wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 01:21:27AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >>>> Here's what I checked in, right after the LVU patch. >>>> >>>> [IEPM] Introduce inline entry point markers >>> >>> One of these two patches breaks ppc64le bootstrap with the assembler >>> complaining "Error: view number mismatch" when compiling >>> libdecnumber. >>> >> I've just passed along a similar failure (.i, .s and command line >> options) to Alex for ppc64 (be) building glibc. > > This fixes at least the testcase Jeff provided me with. I'm going ahead > and checking it in as obvious. I suppose we might need more of these, > on this and other ports, if they have been sloppy about zero-length > pseudo insns :-( > > Would you guys please let me know whether you still see a problem, if > you get a chance to respin? I was just about to crash in bed when I saw > your email. > > When I get back up, I'll build the latest binutils release on ppc64, > ppc64el and aarch64, and then bootstrap gcc with it. I should have done > that when I broadened my testing of the SFN+LVU+IEPM patchset to those > platforms, but I didn't realize I was failing to test them with an > assembler with view support, doh! Sorry about that. No need for the binutils+gcc bootstrapping test when you get up. Mine's already run. ppc, ppc64, ppc64le, aarch64 all covered.
My tester does have half-dozen or so other failures overnight, but I haven't looked at them yet. If any look similar I'll first check if we're dealing with a zero length pseudo insn (I wouldn't be surprised if blockage insns are consistently wrong on that). jeff