On 01/11/2018 05:00 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 11.01.2018 16:56, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >> >> >> On 01/11/2018 09:51 AM, Thomas Huth wrote: >>> On 10.01.2018 22:53, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>> While new compilers like >>>> s390x-linux-gnu-gcc (GCC) 7.2.1 20170915 (Red Hat Cross 7.2.1-1) >>>> Complain, that R1 is missing, old compilers like >>>> gcc (GCC) 4.8.5 20150623 (Red Hat 4.8.5-16) >>>> will complain that R1 is not valid. >>>> >>>> According to the architecture, R1 is valid but ignored. No idea why this >>>> was changed (in a way that programs no longer compile). >>> >>> What a pity :-( >> >> IIR, this was a bugfix. gcc is also used for TPF and they actually use TB and >> the old binutils support for TB was architecturally wrong. Since TB is really >> of no use for Linux this should not matter that much apart from the testcases >> to test the KVM implementation. >> > > Well they managed to break code, so this was indeed a bad decision. With that Binutils change we only report an error for code which was broken anyway. When writing this testcase the right thing would have been to report a Binutils bug instead of writing a testcase which uses an instruction which isn't part of the POP. -Andreas-
