On 3 July 2017 at 12:48, Yvan Roux <yvan.r...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 27 June 2017 at 13:14, Yvan Roux <yvan.r...@linaro.org> wrote: >> Hi Wilco >> >> On 27 June 2017 at 12:53, Wilco Dijkstra <wilco.dijks...@arm.com> wrote: >>> Hi Yvan, >>> >>>> Here is the backport of Wilco's patch (r237607) along with Kyrill's >>>> one (r244643, which removed the remaining occurences of >>>> aarch64_nopcrelative_literal_loads). To fix the issue the original >>>> patch has to be modified, to keep aarch64_pcrelative_literal_loads >>>> test for large models in aarch64_classify_symbol. >>> >>> The patch looks good to me, however I can't approve it. >> >> ok thanks for the review. >> >>>> On trunk and gcc-7-branch the :lo12: relocations are not generated >>>> because of Wilco's fix for pr78733 (r243456 and 243486), but my >>>> understanding is that the bug is still present since compiling >>>> gcc.target/aarch64/pr78733.c with -mcmodel=large brings back the >>>> :lo12: relocations (I'll submit a patch to add the test back if my >>>> understanding is correct). >>> >>> You're right, eventhough -mpc-relative-literal-loads doesn't make much sense >>> in the large memory model, it seems best to keep the option orthogonal to >>> enable the workaround. I've prepared a patch to fix this on trunk/GCC7. >>> It also adds a test which we should add to your changes to GCC6 too. >> >> ok, I think it is what kugan's proposed earlier today in: >> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-06/msg01967.html >> >> I agree that -mpc-relative-literal-loads and large memory model >> doesn't make much sense, now it is what is used in kernel build >> system, but if you handle that in a bigger fix already, that's awesome >> :) > > ping? > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-06/msg01708.html
ping >> Thanks >> Yvan >> >>> Wilco
