[Bug other/60158] powerpc: usage of the .data.rel.ro.local section
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60158 --- Comment #12 from Joakim Tjernlund --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #11) > Do you have a reproducer you can share? > > I'll happily reopen the PR then, of course! After 6 years, no I don't. You could use the test case included in the the patch I think.
[Bug other/60158] powerpc: usage of the .data.rel.ro.local section
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60158 --- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool --- Do you have a reproducer you can share? I'll happily reopen the PR then, of course!
[Bug other/60158] powerpc: usage of the .data.rel.ro.local section
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60158 --- Comment #10 from Joakim Tjernlund --- To be clear, this is still a bug for powerpc(SPE or no SPE) and possibly any other arch using fixup tables like ppc. One can workaround this bug by using the -fno-ira-hoist-pressure, I am not sure why this option work and if there is a chance it will stop working in the future.
[Bug other/60158] powerpc: usage of the .data.rel.ro.local section
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60158 --- Comment #9 from Joakim Tjernlund --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8) > It does not happen on any target currently, and it has never happened > on non-SPE targets before. The main user, u-boot, added the workaround with -fno-ira-hoist-pressure to avoid the bug: arch/powerpc/config.mk: Pass -fno-ira-hoist-pressure when possible There are various toolchain issues that cause us to produce invalid binaries with certain gcc 4.8.x and 4.9.x versions when we don't pass this flag in. Tested-by: Joakim Tjernlund Signed-off-by: Tom Rini The bug is still there as far as I known, the one-line patch hasn't been applied I think.
[Bug other/60158] powerpc: usage of the .data.rel.ro.local section
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60158 --- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool --- It does not happen on any target currently, and it has never happened on non-SPE targets before.
[Bug other/60158] powerpc: usage of the .data.rel.ro.local section
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60158 --- Comment #7 from Joakim Tjernlund --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #6) > The powerpcspe backend has been deprecated in GCC 8 and removed during GCC 9 > development. See corresponding mailing list threads[1,2,3] for details. > > [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2018-04/msg00102.html > [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2018-12/msg00123.html > [3] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2020-May/232342.html This is not SPE specific. More like powerpc or gcc
[Bug other/60158] powerpc: usage of the .data.rel.ro.local section
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60158 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX --- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool --- The powerpcspe backend has been deprecated in GCC 8 and removed during GCC 9 development. See corresponding mailing list threads[1,2,3] for details. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2018-04/msg00102.html [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2018-12/msg00123.html [3] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2020-May/232342.html
[Bug other/60158] powerpc: usage of the .data.rel.ro.local section
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60158 --- Comment #5 from joakim.tjernlund at transmode dot se --- I am sure I saw .data.rel.ro.local section with a .4byte statement in it using -S Now I cannot repeat it. The only thing that has changed that I know is glibc 2.19 is no glibc 2.20 and binutils from 2.24 to 2.25.1 Maybe binutils version makes a difference? Don't have that handy anymore
[Bug other/60158] powerpc: usage of the .data.rel.ro.local section
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60158 --- Comment #4 from Alan Modra --- I meant by my testcase comment that gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr60158.c is a poor test because it does not seem to emit addresses to .data.rel.ro.local or any other non-got section, on gcc-4.9, gcc-5 or master. That means it isn't testing that .fixup is emitted for the failing case found with gcc-4.8.2. I haven't investigated what is needed to write a proper testcase, but from mailing list comments the trigger involves reload. That makes it extremely difficult to test. If u-boot is failing, do you have any evidence that the cause is lack of .fixup? ie. can you see addresses in non-got sections?
[Bug other/60158] powerpc: usage of the .data.rel.ro.local section
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60158 --- Comment #3 from joakim.tjernlund at transmode dot se --- (In reply to Alan Modra from comment #2) > Fixed on master with git commit 8e2a42caa / svn rev 223209. > Fixed for gcc-4.9 with git commit 110222ca0 / svn rev 223714. > Fixed for gcc-4.8 with git commit 071358356 / svn rev 223713. > > Oddly, not backported to gcc-5? > > Regarding the testcase, you won't get .fixup entries unless a section other > than .got/.got2 is holding addresses, which makes it a rather poor test. Not sure I understand, you mean that the existing test is failing and so is my test? How would you suggest I amend the test case to really get a .fixup? The strange thing is that u-boot still fails with gcc 4.9.3 but disabling -fno-ira-hoist-pressure makes it work again. Maybe the fix is non functional in gcc 4.9.3?
[Bug other/60158] powerpc: usage of the .data.rel.ro.local section
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60158 --- Comment #2 from Alan Modra --- Fixed on master with git commit 8e2a42caa / svn rev 223209. Fixed for gcc-4.9 with git commit 110222ca0 / svn rev 223714. Fixed for gcc-4.8 with git commit 071358356 / svn rev 223713. Oddly, not backported to gcc-5? Regarding the testcase, you won't get .fixup entries unless a section other than .got/.got2 is holding addresses, which makes it a rather poor test.
[Bug other/60158] powerpc: usage of the .data.rel.ro.local section
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60158 joakim.tjernlund at transmode dot se changed: What|Removed |Added CC||joakim.tjernlund@transmode. ||se --- Comment #1 from joakim.tjernlund at transmode dot se --- There is a patch at http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/342888/ to address this issue and I THINK it is included in gcc-4.9.3 However, when I build the test case I do not get any .fixup section I cross building from amd64 to ppc32 if that is important
