[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Regression on ARM

From: Thomas Preud'homme
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Regression on ARM
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 12:30:04 +0100
User-agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.5.3

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:03:58 +0400, Kirill Smelkov wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 03:29:26PM +0100, address@hidden wrote:
Another regression is due to the unconditional activation of btest
in the list of tests to run. Indeed, there is no bound checking on
arm (and also C67 and il). This test should thus be run only for
architecture supporting it.

Sorry, my fault, that was late at night. Does the following patch fixes
btest issue for you?

---- 8< ----
From: Kirill Smelkov <address@hidden>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:47:23 +0400
Subject: [PATCH] tests: btest should only run on targets supporting bcheck

After 40a54c43 (Repair bounds-checking runtime), and in particular
5d648485 (Now btest pass!) `make test` was broken on ARCH != i386,
because I've changed btest to unconditionally run on all arches.

But bounds-checking itself is only supported on i386 and oops...

My fault, fix it.

No need to blame yourself, this line is not necessary. Besides, this information can be extracted from git log/blame.

Reported-by: Thomas Preud'homme <address@hidden>
 tests/Makefile | 6 +++++-
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/tests/Makefile b/tests/Makefile
index af1fdb8..ca581b0 100644
--- a/tests/Makefile
+++ b/tests/Makefile
@@ -11,12 +11,16 @@ TESTS = libtest \
                test2 \
                test3 \
                speedtest \
-               btest \

                # test4 # this test does not seem to work on any platform
                # asmtest # this test does not seem to work on any platform

+# bounds-checking is supported only on i386
+ifeq ($(ARCH),i386)
+    TESTS += btest
 # these should work too
 # TESTS += test1 test2 speedtest btest weaktest


Yep it works but shouldn't you use the same filter-out method to be consistent with other disabled tests?

There was a test regression on ARM recently which I managed to
pinpoint to commit b2a02961b4407ca76db5a66ca5ae855cbfba4e8e. All I
can tell so far is that it's related to the addition of the test

Thanks for the report.

I'm new to arm - will try to setup arm cross-compiler toolchain and see
what is going on there, but that will probably take time. In the
meantime, I'm having problem to build tcc arm cross compiler on i386:

I can maybe fix it myself if you have problem setting up your environment.

    gcc -o arm-fpa-tcc tcc.c -DONE_SOURCE -DTCC_TARGET_ARM  -Wall -g
-O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -Wno-pointer-sign -Wno-sign-compare
-Wno-unused-result -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -march=i386
-falign-functions=0 -m32 -lm -ldl
    In file included from libtcc.c:50:0,
                     from tcc.c:22:
    arm-gen.c: In function ‘gfunc_call’:
    arm-gen.c:1058:7: warning: implicit declaration of function
‘vfpr’ [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
    In file included from libtcc.c:42:0,
                     from tcc.c:22:
    tccpp.c: In function ‘macro_subst’:
    tccpp.c:2806:12: warning: ‘*((void *)&cval+4)’ is used
uninitialized in this function [-Wuninitialized]
    /tmp/ccWBLnLc.o: In function `gfunc_call':
/home/kirr/src/tools/tinycc/arm-gen.c:1058: undefined reference to `vfpr' /home/kirr/src/tools/tinycc/arm-gen.c:1058: undefined reference to `vfpr'
    collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
    Makefile:194: recipe for target 'arm-fpa-tcc' failed
    make: *** [arm-fpa-tcc] Error 1

could you please fix it, or tell me what is the workaround, so I could
try fixing tcc while working on cross-version of it?

Yes sure, I'm sorry. I broke build without vfp. I always tested with VFP in my tests.

Also, while I'm studying how to setup arm toolchain, what is `objdump -d`
output on arm for gcc and tcc for the next source?

---- 8< ----
void *bfa0()
    return __builtin_frame_address(0);

void *bfa1()
    return __builtin_frame_address(1);

void *bfa2()
    return __builtin_frame_address(2);
---- 8< ----

*** tcc ***

00000000 <bfa0>:
   0:   e1a0c00d        mov     ip, sp
   4:   e92d5800        push    {fp, ip, lr}
   8:   e28db00c        add     fp, sp, #12
   c:   e1a00000        nop                     ; (mov r0, r0)
  10:   e28b0000        add     r0, fp, #0
  14:   e1a00000        nop                     ; (mov r0, r0)
  18:   e91ba800        ldmdb   fp, {fp, sp, pc}

0000001c <bfa1>:
  1c:   e1a0c00d        mov     ip, sp
  20:   e92d5800        push    {fp, ip, lr}
  24:   e28db00c        add     fp, sp, #12
  28:   e1a00000        nop                     ; (mov r0, r0)
  2c:   e59b0000        ldr     r0, [fp]
  30:   e1a00000        nop                     ; (mov r0, r0)
  34:   e91ba800        ldmdb   fp, {fp, sp, pc}

00000038 <bfa2>:
  38:   e1a0c00d        mov     ip, sp
  3c:   e92d5800        push    {fp, ip, lr}
  40:   e28db00c        add     fp, sp, #12
  44:   e24bd010        sub     sp, fp, #16
  48:   e59b0000        ldr     r0, [fp]
  4c:   e50b0010        str     r0, [fp, #-16]
  50:   e51be010        ldr     lr, [fp, #-16]
  54:   e59e0000        ldr     r0, [lr]
  58:   e1a00000        nop                     ; (mov r0, r0)
  5c:   e91ba800        ldmdb   fp, {fp, sp, pc}

*** gcc ***

00000000 <bfa0>:
   0:   b480            push    {r7}
   2:   af00            add     r7, sp, #0
   4:   463b            mov     r3, r7
   6:   4618            mov     r0, r3
   8:   46bd            mov     sp, r7
   a:   bc80            pop     {r7}
   c:   4770            bx      lr
   e:   bf00            nop

00000010 <bfa1>:
  10:   b480            push    {r7}
  12:   af00            add     r7, sp, #0
  14:   683b            ldr     r3, [r7, #0]
  16:   4618            mov     r0, r3
  18:   46bd            mov     sp, r7
  1a:   bc80            pop     {r7}
  1c:   4770            bx      lr
  1e:   bf00            nop

00000020 <bfa2>:
  20:   b480            push    {r7}
  22:   af00            add     r7, sp, #0
  24:   683b            ldr     r3, [r7, #0]
  26:   681b            ldr     r3, [r3, #0]
  28:   4618            mov     r0, r3
  2a:   46bd            mov     sp, r7
  2c:   bc80            pop     {r7}
  2e:   4770            bx      lr

By the way, what arm variant I should test against - it seems there are many? Another question: maybe you know, what is the most convenient way
to setup arm cross-toolchain on Debian GNU/Linux on i386?

The bug I experienced was with the hardfloat variant (that is, TCC_ARM_HARDFLOAT, TCC_ARM_EABI and TCC_ARM_VFP must be defined). Maybe the bug also happens on EABI but I can't tell for sure since I haven't tried.


Thank to you :)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]