Hi All,
Since this patch series now contains SVE support I am removing the changes
to the SVE tests in this patch series. I assume the OK still stands as the
only change here is undoing updates to three files.
Thanks,
Tamar
gcc/testsuite/
2018-08-28 Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com>
PR target/86486
* gcc.dg/pr82788.c: Skip for AArch64.
* gcc.dg/guality/vla-1.c: Turn off stack-clash.
* gcc.target/aarch64/subsp.c: Likewise.
* gcc.dg/params/blocksort-part.c: Skip stack-clash checks
on AArch64.
* gcc.dg/stack-check-10.c: Add AArch64 specific checks.
* gcc.dg/stack-check-5.c: Add AArch64 specific checks.
* gcc.dg/stack-check-6a.c: Skip on AArch64, we don't support this.
* testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
(check_effective_target_frame_pointer_for_non_leaf): AArch64 does not
require frame pointer for non-leaf functions.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 3, 2018 19:30
> To: Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com>; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: nd <n...@arm.com>; James Greenhalgh <james.greenha...@arm.com>;
> Richard Earnshaw <richard.earns...@arm.com>; Marcus Shawcroft
> <marcus.shawcr...@arm.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH][GCC][AArch64] Cleanup the AArch64 testsuite when
> stack-clash is on [Patch (6/6)]
>
> On 07/24/2018 04:28 AM, tamar.christ...@arm.com wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > This patch cleans up the testsuite when a run is done with stack clash
> > protection turned on.
> >
> > Concretely this switches off -fstack-clash-protection for a couple of tests:
> >
> > * sve: We don't yet support stack-clash-protection and sve, so for now turn
> these off.
> > * assembler scan: some tests are quite fragile in that they check for exact
> > assembly output, e.g. check for exact amount of sub etc. These won't
> > match now.
> > * vla: Some of the ubsan tests negative array indices. Because the arrays
> weren't
> > used before the incorrect $sp wouldn't have been used. The correct
> value is
> > restored on ret. Now however we probe the $sp which causes a
> segfault.
> > * params: When testing the parameters we have to skip these on AArch64
> because of our
> > custom constraints on them. We already test them separately so
> > this
> isn't a
> > loss.
> >
> > Note that the testsuite is not entire clean due to gdb failure caused
> > by alloca with stack clash. On AArch64 we output an incorrect .loc
> > directive, but this is already the case with the current implementation in
> GCC and is a bug unrelated to this patch series.
> >
> > Bootstrapped Regtested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu, x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
> and no issues.
> > Both targets were tested with stack clash on and off by default.
> >
> > Ok for trunk?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Tamar
> >
> > gcc/testsuite/
> > 2018-07-24 Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com>
> >
> > PR target/86486
> > * gcc.dg/pr82788.c: Skip for AArch64.
> > * gcc.dg/guality/vla-1.c: Turn off stack-clash.
> > * gcc.target/aarch64/subsp.c: Likewise.
> > * gcc.target/aarch64/sve/mask_struct_load_3.c: Likewise.
> > * gcc.target/aarch64/sve/mask_struct_store_3.c: Likewise.
> > * gcc.target/aarch64/sve/mask_struct_store_4.c: Likewise.
> > * gcc.dg/params/blocksort-part.c: Skip stack-clash checks
> > on AArch64.
> > * gcc.dg/stack-check-10.c: Add AArch64 specific checks.
> > * gcc.dg/stack-check-5.c: Add AArch64 specific checks.
> > * gcc.dg/stack-check-6a.c: Skip on AArch64, we don't support this.
> > * testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> > (check_effective_target_frame_pointer_for_non_leaf): AArch64
> does not
> > require frame pointer for non-leaf functions.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 12:23
> >> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> >> Cc: nd <n...@arm.com>; James Greenhalgh
> <james.greenha...@arm.com>;
> >> Richard Earnshaw <richard.earns...@arm.com>; Marcus Shawcroft
> >> <marcus.shawcr...@arm.com>
> >> Subject: [PATCH][GCC][AArch64] Cleanup the AArch64 testsuite when
> >> stack- clash is on [Patch (6/6)]
> >>
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> This patch cleans up the testsuite when a run is done with stack
> >> clash protection turned on.
> >>
> >> Concretely this switches off -fstack-clash-protection for a couple of
> >> tests:
> >>
> >> * sve: We don't yet support stack-clash-protection and sve, so for
> >> now turn these off.
> >> * assembler scan: some tests are quite fragile in that they check for exact
> >> assembly output, e.g. check for exact amount of sub etc. These
> >> won't
> >> match now.
> >> * vla: Some of the ubsan tests negative array indices. Because the
> >> arrays weren't
> >> used before the incorrect $sp wouldn't have been used. The
> >> correct value is
> >> restored on ret. Now however we probe the $sp which causes a
> segfault.
> >> * params: When testing the parameters we have to skip these on
> >> AArch64 because of our
> >> custom constraints on them. We already test them
> >> separately so this isn't a
> >> loss.
> >>
> >> Note that the testsuite is not entire clean due to gdb failure caused
> >> by alloca with stack clash. On AArch64 we output an incorrect .loc
> >> directive, but this is already the case with the current
> >> implementation in GCC and is a bug unrelated to this patch series.
> >>
> >> Bootstrapped Regtested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu, x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
> >> and no issues.
> >> Both targets were tested with stack clash on and off by default.
> >>
> >> Ok for trunk?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Tamar
> >>
> >> gcc/testsuite/
> >> 2018-07-11 Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com>
> >>
> >> PR target/86486
> >> gcc.dg/pr82788.c: Skip for AArch64.
> >> gcc.dg/guality/vla-1.c: Turn off stack-clash.
> >> gcc.target/aarch64/subsp.c: Likewise.
> >> gcc.target/aarch64/sve/mask_struct_load_3.c: Likewise.
> >> gcc.target/aarch64/sve/mask_struct_store_3.c: Likewise.
> >> gcc.target/aarch64/sve/mask_struct_store_4.c: Likewise.
> >> gcc.dg/params/blocksort-part.c: Skip stack-clash checks
> >> on AArch64.
>
> This is fine. FWIW, I'd been ignoring vla-1 and one or two others that were
> clearly invalid if stack-clash were on by default locally, but didn't push any
> kind of patch for that upstream since I didn't think anyone builds with
> stack-
> clash on by default (I did for testing purposes of course).
>
> Jeff
>
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/ubsan/vla-1.c b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/ubsan/vla-1.c
index 52ade3aab7566dce3ca7ef931ac65895005d5e13..c97465edae195442a71ee66ab25015a2ac4fc8fc 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/ubsan/vla-1.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/ubsan/vla-1.c
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
/* { dg-do run } */
-/* { dg-options "-fsanitize=vla-bound -Wall -Wno-unused-variable" } */
+/* { dg-options "-fsanitize=vla-bound -Wall -Wno-unused-variable -fno-stack-clash-protection" } */
typedef long int V;
int x = -1;
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/params/blocksort-part.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/params/blocksort-part.c
index a9154f2e61ccd21b60153f20be3891b988f9ef2c..1e677878e7bd9c68b026f8c72b0de9f01e15459c 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/params/blocksort-part.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/params/blocksort-part.c
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+/* { dg-skip-if "AArch64 does not support these bounds." { aarch64*-*-* } { "--param stack-clash-protection-*" } } */
/*-------------------------------------------------------------*/
/*--- Block sorting machinery ---*/
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr82788.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr82788.c
index a8f628fd7f66c3e56739f6ff491df38b23f4d4df..41c442f61a625c8b350e1e4c870a98d86b167031 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr82788.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr82788.c
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
/* { dg-do run } */
/* { dg-options "-O2 -fstack-clash-protection --param stack-clash-protection-probe-interval=10 --param stack-clash-protection-guard-size=12" } */
/* { dg-require-effective-target supports_stack_clash_protection } */
+/* { dg-skip-if "AArch64 does not support this interval." { aarch64*-*-* } } */
int main() { int a[1442]; return 0;}
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/stack-check-10.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/stack-check-10.c
index a86956ad6925464e4a938a33e609fae5004201c7..2f5a090cb7a4ed6d2e6e4317492150a348a326ab 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/stack-check-10.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/stack-check-10.c
@@ -39,3 +39,4 @@ f3 (void)
need a frame pointer. Otherwise neither should. */
/* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump-times "Stack clash no frame pointer needed" 2 "pro_and_epilogue" { target { ! frame_pointer_for_non_leaf } } } } */
/* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump-times "Stack clash frame pointer needed" 2 "pro_and_epilogue" { target { frame_pointer_for_non_leaf } } } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump-times "Stack clash no probe small stack adjustment in prologue" 2 "pro_and_epilogue" { target { aarch64*-*-* } } } } */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/stack-check-5.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/stack-check-5.c
index 604fa3cf6c5b502f74c1e3497b3b8d72a15bb3ea..0243147939c10e8f4632520b12714724af85b332 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/stack-check-5.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/stack-check-5.c
@@ -66,7 +66,9 @@ f3 (void)
/* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump-times "Stack clash no frame pointer needed" 4 "pro_and_epilogue" { target { ! frame_pointer_for_non_leaf } } } } */
/* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump-times "Stack clash no frame pointer needed" 2 "pro_and_epilogue" { target { frame_pointer_for_non_leaf } } } } */
/* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump-times "Stack clash frame pointer needed" 2 "pro_and_epilogue" { target { frame_pointer_for_non_leaf } } } } */
-
+/* AArch64 won't require a probe here due to the allocation amount being less than 1KB. */
+/* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump-times "Stack clash no probe small stack adjustment in prologue" 3 "pro_and_epilogue" { target { aarch64*-*-* } } } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump-times "Stack clash no probe no stack adjustment in prologue" 1 "pro_and_epilogue" { target { aarch64*-*-* } } } } */
/* We have selected the size of the array in f2/f3 to be large enough
to not live in the red zone on targets that support it.
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/stack-check-6a.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/stack-check-6a.c
index 8fb9c621585957a85877ebadfbc4a8daabe4311c..68dd9bc48a0c26ecb84ddd2c09b8aa74d3276695 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/stack-check-6a.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/stack-check-6a.c
@@ -5,6 +5,7 @@
/* { dg-options "-O2 -fstack-clash-protection -fdump-rtl-pro_and_epilogue -fno-optimize-sibling-calls --param stack-clash-protection-probe-interval=12 --param stack-clash-protection-guard-size=16" } */
/* { dg-require-effective-target supports_stack_clash_protection } */
/* { dg-skip-if "" { *-*-* } { "-fstack-protector*" } { "" } } */
+/* { dg-skip-if "" { aarch64*-*-* } } */
#include "stack-check-6.c"
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/subsp.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/subsp.c
index 70d848c59d1f1e4df4314ca012c7a5d9d3b91ebc..6ef6b2c90ae694055749a94b68cbba5ee4aea882 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/subsp.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/subsp.c
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-/* { dg-options "-O" } */
+/* { dg-options "-O -fno-stack-clash-protection" } */
int foo (void *);
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
index 7f33ce8a3efabc8a9144a83ee326120415fd38f7..7e9e89175071e2b93128c7423dc2b72510f3aa6d 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
@@ -9341,10 +9341,6 @@ proc check_effective_target_supports_stack_clash_protection { } {
# Return 1 if the target creates a frame pointer for non-leaf functions
# Note we ignore cases where we apply tail call optimization here.
proc check_effective_target_frame_pointer_for_non_leaf { } {
- if { [istarget aarch*-*-*] } {
- return 1
- }
-
# Solaris/x86 defaults to -fno-omit-frame-pointer.
if { [istarget i?86-*-solaris*] || [istarget x86_64-*-solaris*] } {
return 1
