File: core-attr-struct-as-array.c

package info (click to toggle)
gcc-arm-none-eabi 15%3A14.2.rel1-1
  • links: PTS, VCS
  • area: main
  • in suites: forky, sid, trixie
  • size: 1,099,328 kB
  • sloc: cpp: 3,627,108; ansic: 2,571,498; ada: 834,230; f90: 235,082; makefile: 79,231; asm: 74,984; xml: 51,692; exp: 39,736; sh: 33,298; objc: 15,629; python: 15,069; fortran: 14,429; pascal: 7,003; awk: 5,070; perl: 3,106; ml: 285; lisp: 253; lex: 204; haskell: 135
file content (35 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 1,147 bytes parent folder | download 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
 
/* Basic test for struct __attribute__((preserve_access_index))
   for BPF CO-RE support.  */

/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options "-O0 -dA -gbtf -mco-re -masm=normal" } */

struct S {
  int a;
  int b;
  int c;
} __attribute__((preserve_access_index));

void
func (struct S * s)
{
  /* This test is marked as XFAIL since for the time being the CO-RE
     implementation is not able to disambiguate between a point manipulation
     and a CO-RE access when using preserve_access_index attribute.  The
     current implemetantion is incorrect if we consider that STRUCT S might
     have different size within the kernel.
     This example demonstrates how the implementation of preserve_access_index
     as an attribute of the type is flagile.  */

  /* 2:2 */
  int *x = &((s+2)->c);
  *x = 4;

  /* 2:1 */
  int *y = __builtin_preserve_access_index (&((s+2)->b));
  *y = 2;
}

/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "ascii \"2:2.0\"\[\t \]+\[^\n\]*btf_aux_string" 1 { xfail *-*-* } } } */
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "ascii \"2:1.0\"\[\t \]+\[^\n\]*btf_aux_string" 1 } } */
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "bpfcr_type" 2 } } */