On Mon, 2020-04-27 at 16:04 -0400, Michael Meissner via Gcc-patches wrote:
> This patch adds a test for the case where we have prefixed load/store
> instructions, a large stack frame, and stack checking is enabled.
>
> This is patch #7 of 7. I have checked this patch on a little endian power8
> system running Linux, and the test passed. Can I check this into the GCC 10
> trunk?
>
> 2020-04-27 Michael Meissner <meiss...@linux.ibm.com>
>
> * gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-stack-protect.c: New test to make sure
> -fstack-protect-strong works with prefixed addressing.
>
> --- /tmp/OxuBEg_prefix-stack-protect.c 2020-04-27 14:12:53.883004507
> -0400
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-stack-protect.c 2020-04-27
> 14:12:53.706006931 -0400
> @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_prefixed_addr } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -mdejagnu-cpu=future -fstack-protector-strong" } */
> +
> +/* Test that we can handle large stack frames with -fstack-protector-strong
> and
> + prefixed addressing. This was originally discovered in trying to build
s/in/when/
> + glibc with -mcpu=future, and vfwprintf.c failed because it used
> + -fstack-protector-strong. */
> +
> +extern long foo (char *);
> +
> +long
> +bar (void)
> +{
> + char buffer[0x20000];
> + return foo (buffer) + 1;
> +}
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler {\mpld\M} } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler {\mpstd\M} } } */
>
lgtm,
thanks,
-Will
