On 26.04.2023 17:45, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 08:26:26 PDT (-0700), gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org wrote: >> >> >> On 4/25/23 08:50, Jan Beulich via Gcc-patches wrote: >>> RISC-V will emit ".option nopic" when -fno-pie is in effect, which >>> matches the generic pattern. Just like done for Alpha, special-case >>> RISC-V. >>> --- >>> A couple more targets look to be affected as well, simply because their >>> "no-operation" insn doesn't match the expectation. With the apparently >>> necessary further special casing I then also question the presence of >>> "SWYM" in the generic pattern. >>> >>> An alternative here might be to use dg-additional-options to add e.g. >>> -fpie. I don't think I know all possible implications of doing so, >>> though. > > Looks like there's already a no-pie for SPARC. Nothing's jumping out as > to why, but I'm not super familiar with `-fpatchable-function-entry`. > >> I think this is fine. Go ahead and install it. > > We run into this sort of thing somewhat frequently. Maybe we want a DG > matcher that avoids matching assembler directives? Or maybe even a > "scan-assembler-nop-times" type thing, given that different ports have > different names for the instruction? > > I don't see reason to block fixing the test on something bigger, though, > so seems fine for trunk. Presumably we'd want to backport this as well?
Perhaps, but in order to do so I'd need to be given the respective okay. Jan
