| Message ID | CAKdteObQgHmHKzJQmhQcirE1LDMahPD=_M6KRN-G_4ZETXtByw@mail.gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 11:55:42AM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On 4 May 2016 at 10:43, Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo.tkachov@foss.arm.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Christophe, > > > > > > On 02/05/16 12:50, Christophe Lyon wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I've noticed a "regression" of AArch64's noplt_3.c in the gcc-6-branch > >> because my validation script adds the branch name to gcc/REVISION. > >> > >> As a result scan-assembler-times "br" also matched "gcc-6-branch", > >> hence the failure. > >> > >> The small attached patch replaces "br" by "br\t" to fix the problem. > >> > >> I've also made a similar change to tail_indirect_call_1 although the > >> problem did not happen for this test because it uses scan-assembler > >> instead of scan-assembler-times. I think it's better to make it more > >> robust too. > >> > >> OK? > >> > >> Christophe > > > > > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/noplt_3.c > > b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/noplt_3.c > > index ef6e65d..a382618 100644 > > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/noplt_3.c > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/noplt_3.c > > @@ -16,5 +16,5 @@ cal_novalue (int a) > > dec (a); > > } > > -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "br" 2 } } */ > > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "br\t" 2 } } */ > > /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "b\t" } } */ > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/tail_indirect_call_1.c > > b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/tail_indirect_call_1.c > > index 4759d20..e863323 100644 > > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/tail_indirect_call_1.c > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/tail_indirect_call_1.c > > @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ > > typedef void FP (int); > > -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "br" } } */ > > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "br\t" } } */ > > > > Did you mean to make this scan-assembler-times as well? > > > > I kept the changes minimal, but you are right, it would be more robust > as attached. > > OK for trunk and gcc-6 branch? OK. If you want completeness on this, the gcc.target/aarch64/tail_indirect_call_1.c change should go back to the gcc-5 branch too. Cheers, James
On 13 May 2016 at 15:51, James Greenhalgh <james.greenhalgh@arm.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 11:55:42AM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote: >> On 4 May 2016 at 10:43, Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo.tkachov@foss.arm.com> wrote: >> > >> > Hi Christophe, >> > >> > >> > On 02/05/16 12:50, Christophe Lyon wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I've noticed a "regression" of AArch64's noplt_3.c in the gcc-6-branch >> >> because my validation script adds the branch name to gcc/REVISION. >> >> >> >> As a result scan-assembler-times "br" also matched "gcc-6-branch", >> >> hence the failure. >> >> >> >> The small attached patch replaces "br" by "br\t" to fix the problem. >> >> >> >> I've also made a similar change to tail_indirect_call_1 although the >> >> problem did not happen for this test because it uses scan-assembler >> >> instead of scan-assembler-times. I think it's better to make it more >> >> robust too. >> >> >> >> OK? >> >> >> >> Christophe >> > >> > >> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/noplt_3.c >> > b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/noplt_3.c >> > index ef6e65d..a382618 100644 >> > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/noplt_3.c >> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/noplt_3.c >> > @@ -16,5 +16,5 @@ cal_novalue (int a) >> > dec (a); >> > } >> > -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "br" 2 } } */ >> > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "br\t" 2 } } */ >> > /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "b\t" } } */ >> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/tail_indirect_call_1.c >> > b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/tail_indirect_call_1.c >> > index 4759d20..e863323 100644 >> > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/tail_indirect_call_1.c >> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/tail_indirect_call_1.c >> > @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ >> > typedef void FP (int); >> > -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "br" } } */ >> > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "br\t" } } */ >> > >> > Did you mean to make this scan-assembler-times as well? >> > >> >> I kept the changes minimal, but you are right, it would be more robust >> as attached. >> >> OK for trunk and gcc-6 branch? > > OK. > > If you want completeness on this, the > gcc.target/aarch64/tail_indirect_call_1.c change should go back to the > gcc-5 branch too. > Thanks, I've committed to trunk, backported to gcc-6, and partially to gcc-5. Christophe. > Cheers, > James >
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/noplt_3.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/noplt_3.c index ef6e65d..a382618 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/noplt_3.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/noplt_3.c @@ -16,5 +16,5 @@ cal_novalue (int a) dec (a); } -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "br" 2 } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "br\t" 2 } } */ /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "b\t" } } */ diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/tail_indirect_call_1.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/tail_indirect_call_1.c index 4759d20..de8f12d 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/tail_indirect_call_1.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/tail_indirect_call_1.c @@ -3,8 +3,8 @@ typedef void FP (int); -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "br" } } */ -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "blr" } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "br\t" 2 } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "blr\t" } } */ void f1 (FP fp, int n) {