Skip to content

[NFC] Reduce number of run steps in ppc rop-protect test. #139607

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
mandlebug merged 1 commit into from
May 14, 2025
Merged

[NFC] Reduce number of run steps in ppc rop-protect test. #139607

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
10 changes: 0 additions & 10 deletions clang/test/Driver/ppc-mrop-protection-support-check.c
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,20 +1,10 @@
// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
// RUN: -mcpu=pwr10 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP
// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
// RUN: -mcpu=power10 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP
// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
// RUN: -mcpu=pwr9 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP
// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
// RUN: -mcpu=power9 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP
Copy link
Contributor

@amy-kwan amy-kwan May 14, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Are we removing P9 as it should be covered by both P8/P10? Or did we also mean to keep a P9 line?

Copy link
Member Author

@mandlebug mandlebug May 14, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah. We have one test for P8 which is the first CPU version supported, and one test for P10 which is a later CPU that also supports it. Adding a P9 doesn't really add any coverage IMO.

// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
// RUN: -mcpu=pwr8 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP
Copy link
Contributor

@amy-kwan amy-kwan May 14, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't feel super strongly either way, but should we keep the pwr version for consistency?

Copy link
Member Author

@mandlebug mandlebug May 14, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The P10 run step uses the pwr format. I think one run step for each mcpu format is adequate. Realistically we should have other coverage that ensures that the 2 formats sets up the same environment and this test could use just one format either way, but since we have a run step for a target greater then 8 anyway I thought to test one of each.

// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
// RUN: -mcpu=power8 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP

// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
// RUN: -mcpu=pwr7 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=NOROP
// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
// RUN: -mcpu=power7 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=NOROP

#ifdef __ROP_PROTECT__
static_assert(false, "ROP Protect enabled");
Expand Down