On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 04:05:47PM +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> writes: > > Bootstrapped/regtested on aarch64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk/13? > > > > -- >8 -- > > These tests fail when the testsuite is executed with > > -fstack-protector-strong. > > To avoid this, this patch adds -fno-stack-protector to dg-options. > > > > The list of FAILs is appended. As you can see, it's mostly about > > scan-assembler-* which are sort of expected to fail with the stack > > protector on. > > > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/ldp_stp_unaligned_2.c scan-assembler-not > > mov\\tx[0-9]+, sp > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/shadow_call_stack_5.c scan-assembler-times > > stp\\\\tx29, x30, \\\\[sp\\\\] 1 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/shadow_call_stack_5.c scan-assembler ldr\\\\tx29, > > \\\\[sp\\\\] > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/shadow_call_stack_6.c scan-assembler-times > > str\\\\tx30, \\\\[sp\\\\] 1 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/shadow_call_stack_7.c scan-assembler-times > > stp\\\\tx19, x30, \\\\[sp, -[0-9]+\\\\]! 1 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/shadow_call_stack_7.c scan-assembler ldr\\\\tx19, > > \\\\[sp\\\\], [0-9]+ > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/shadow_call_stack_8.c scan-assembler-times > > stp\\\\tx19, x20, \\\\[sp, -[0-9]+\\\\]! 1 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/shadow_call_stack_8.c scan-assembler ldp\\\\tx19, > > x20, \\\\[sp\\\\], [0-9]+ > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/stack-check-12.c scan-assembler-times str\\\\txzr, > > 2 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/stack-check-prologue-11.c scan-assembler-times > > str\\\\s+xzr, \\\\[sp, 1024\\\\] 1 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/stack-check-prologue-12.c scan-assembler-times > > str\\\\s+xzr, \\\\[sp, 1024\\\\] 1 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/stack-check-prologue-13.c scan-assembler-times > > str\\\\s+xzr, \\\\[sp, 1024\\\\] 1 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/stack-check-prologue-13.c scan-assembler-times > > str\\\\s+x30, \\\\[sp\\\\] 1 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/stack-check-prologue-14.c scan-assembler-times > > str\\\\s+xzr, \\\\[sp, 1024\\\\] 1 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/stack-check-prologue-14.c scan-assembler-times > > str\\\\s+x30, \\\\[sp\\\\] 1 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/stack-check-prologue-15.c scan-assembler-times > > str\\\\s+xzr, \\\\[sp, 1024\\\\] 1 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/stack-check-prologue-15.c scan-assembler-times > > str\\\\s+x30, \\\\[sp\\\\] 1 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/stack-check-prologue-17.c check-function-bodies > > test1 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/stack-check-prologue-17.c check-function-bodies > > test2 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/stack-check-prologue-18.c check-function-bodies > > test1 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/stack-check-prologue-18.c check-function-bodies > > test2 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/stack-check-prologue-18.c check-function-bodies > > test3 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/stack-check-prologue-19.c check-function-bodies > > test1 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/stack-check-prologue-19.c check-function-bodies > > test2 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/stack-check-prologue-19.c check-function-bodies > > test3 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/stack-check-prologue-2.c scan-assembler-times > > str\\\\s+xzr, 0 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/stack-check-prologue-5.c scan-assembler-times > > str\\\\s+xzr, \\\\[sp, 1024\\\\] 1 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/stack-check-prologue-6.c scan-assembler-times > > str\\\\s+xzr, \\\\[sp, 1024\\\\] 1 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/stack-check-prologue-8.c scan-assembler-times > > str\\\\s+xzr, \\\\[sp, 1024\\\\] 2 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/stack-check-prologue-9.c scan-assembler-times > > str\\\\s+xzr, \\\\[sp, 1024\\\\] 1 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_1.c scan-assembler-times str\\tx30, > > \\\\[sp, -[0-9]+\\\\]! 2 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_10.c scan-assembler-times stp\\tx19, > > x30, \\\\[sp, [0-9]+\\\\] 1 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_10.c scan-assembler ldp\\tx19, x30, > > \\\\[sp, [0-9]+\\\\] > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_11.c scan-assembler-times stp\\tx29, > > x30, \\\\[sp, -[0-9]+\\\\]! 2 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_13.c scan-assembler-times stp\\tx29, > > x30, \\\\[sp\\\\] 1 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_15.c scan-assembler-times stp\\tx29, > > x30, \\\\[sp, [0-9]+\\\\] 1 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_2.c scan-assembler-times stp\\tx19, > > x30, \\\\[sp, -[0-9]+\\\\]! 1 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_2.c scan-assembler ldp\\tx19, x30, > > \\\\[sp\\\\], [0-9]+ > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_4.c scan-assembler-times stp\\tx19, > > x30, \\\\[sp, -[0-9]+\\\\]! 1 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_4.c scan-assembler ldp\\tx19, x30, > > \\\\[sp\\\\], [0-9]+ > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_6.c scan-assembler-times str\\tx30, > > \\\\[sp\\\\] 1 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_7.c scan-assembler-times stp\\tx19, > > x30, \\\\[sp] 1 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_8.c scan-assembler-times str\\tx30, > > \\\\[sp, [0-9]+\\\\] 1 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_8.c scan-assembler ldr\\tx30, \\\\[sp, > > [0-9]+\\\\] > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/sve/struct_vect_24.c scan-assembler-times > > cmp\\\\s+x[0-9]+, 61440 4 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/sve/struct_vect_24.c scan-assembler-times > > sub\\\\s+x[0-9]+, x[0-9]+, 61440 4 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/sve/struct_vect_24.c scan-assembler-times > > cmp\\s+x[0-9]+, 61440 4 > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/sve/struct_vect_24.c scan-assembler-times > > sub\\s+x[0-9]+, x[0-9]+, 61440 4 > > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > > > * gcc.target/aarch64/ldp_stp_unaligned_2.c: Use -fno-stack-protector. > > * gcc.target/aarch64/shadow_call_stack_5.c: Likewise. > > * gcc.target/aarch64/shadow_call_stack_6.c: Likewise. > > * gcc.target/aarch64/shadow_call_stack_7.c: Likewise. > > * gcc.target/aarch64/shadow_call_stack_8.c: Likewise. > > * gcc.target/aarch64/stack-check-12.c: Likewise. > > * gcc.target/aarch64/stack-check-prologue-11.c: Likewise. > > * gcc.target/aarch64/stack-check-prologue-12.c: Likewise. > > * gcc.target/aarch64/stack-check-prologue-13.c: Likewise. > > * gcc.target/aarch64/stack-check-prologue-14.c: Likewise. > > * gcc.target/aarch64/stack-check-prologue-15.c: Likewise. > > * gcc.target/aarch64/stack-check-prologue-17.c: Likewise. > > * gcc.target/aarch64/stack-check-prologue-18.c: Likewise. > > * gcc.target/aarch64/stack-check-prologue-19.c: Likewise. > > * gcc.target/aarch64/stack-check-prologue-2.c: Likewise. > > * gcc.target/aarch64/stack-check-prologue-5.c: Likewise. > > * gcc.target/aarch64/stack-check-prologue-6.c: Likewise. > > * gcc.target/aarch64/stack-check-prologue-8.c: Likewise. > > * gcc.target/aarch64/stack-check-prologue-9.c: Likewise. > > * gcc.target/aarch64/sve/struct_vect_24.c: Likewise. > > * gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_1.c: Likewise. > > * gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_10.c: Likewise. > > * gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_11.c: Likewise. > > * gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_13.c: Likewise. > > * gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_15.c: Likewise. > > * gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_2.c: Likewise. > > * gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_4.c: Likewise. > > * gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_6.c: Likewise. > > * gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_7.c: Likewise. > > * gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_8.c: Likewise. > > OK. I'm afraid this is likely to be an ongoing battle though.
Thanks. > Maybe we should enforce this at the .exp level instead? > E.g. we could automatically add -fno-stack-protector to tests that > aren't being run. I'd say: when a dg-do compile test checks scan-assembler-* and -fstack-protector* isn't in dg-options, add -fno-stack-protector. > I suppose it's a question for those who test -fstack-protector > which is worse: potentially losing some dg-do compile coverage > of target-specific tests, or having to keep adding explicit > -fno-stack-protector options. So far it hasn't been terrible. We run the testsuite with -fstack-protector-strong, as well as without it, and it's easy to see that only the -f-p-s run failed. Marek
