From patchwork Mon May 2 11:50:59 2016 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Christophe Lyon X-Patchwork-Id: 67008 Delivered-To: patch@linaro.org Received: by 10.140.23.146 with SMTP id 18csp1003454qgp; Mon, 2 May 2016 04:51:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.98.48.71 with SMTP id w68mr50375474pfw.18.1462189888664; Mon, 02 May 2016 04:51:28 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org. [209.132.180.131]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ys1si12443260pab.160.2016.05.02.04.51.28 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 02 May 2016 04:51:28 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gcc-patches-return-426335-patch=linaro.org@gcc.gnu.org designates 209.132.180.131 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.131; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gcc.gnu.org; spf=pass (google.com: domain of gcc-patches-return-426335-patch=linaro.org@gcc.gnu.org designates 209.132.180.131 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=gcc-patches-return-426335-patch=linaro.org@gcc.gnu.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=linaro.org DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gcc.gnu.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help:sender :mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; q= dns; s=default; b=ccPmognPoSUG7o3AN4jmhMXP4XgN/8pAeTwUkb5dU2s9qS xS9z3kkcXH1o2ir5aRNVNIAmfx5t69/8vf80o+7myl+NboaL4v3G6l4Fs7HzuuRT AdsSio8xQEzbAtOQjDv6wyZp4NxesLn7GHdbxr5Oa+EaQ/OFkC+KgGBHeOCxE= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help:sender :mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; s= default; bh=xcJcN30gEDTlWwhMq2F4pws7jgE=; b=P5zKe6422V6B5f6rFPW7 OIt9HXV4oTELpH7i5DgI+R5DEFGhuwg61wq1vjoJYRcpbVFuVh4XUsXAo5EJ74u+ 6hwG9jCFwKJ8Ytbc0HqdbAvKAaxB9H6YogVMdCFTVEvmTF1KP+z/xR8qcVq22dXH lAhlfmNs/UpQjbijUOkUy8U= Received: (qmail 107390 invoked by alias); 2 May 2016 11:51:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 107359 invoked by uid 89); 2 May 2016 11:51:14 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL, BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=16, 5 X-HELO: mail-qk0-f172.google.com Received: from mail-qk0-f172.google.com (HELO mail-qk0-f172.google.com) (209.85.220.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 02 May 2016 11:51:01 +0000 Received: by mail-qk0-f172.google.com with SMTP id r184so72217195qkc.1 for ; Mon, 02 May 2016 04:51:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=X56l4bz9HEnFtqbzLW73TgefZ3hnIjBoUcuiLcPeduc=; b=KG42LH0LoG8mpOMzdNopptmPPwLGXIjqx04MzKkC9C4OpjUMPWlZAP+KF6AyLauwaf MRTXZeD7zV+N9UBJHXzamI1NUgw7B/Wl/wDeShuQji0vUQJamY8FBtXw4gB/1984rBn8 AKju8t07qWIdOIchoh/qIoBOLfwibhXq/PpXfdJ8y4WjZZJ/tE4m/IGdUPv2JEM/z6Lb 0U0N4MXo3pnq6AfqUILiSTnYB2pjbTCxfAh9od2DLV66TNcBH8KBriSVfmAoMDbEXqX9 Sx6PG9RLF3lpiilQYpzXNi9h4lkfrpHHsqtwptMKpYSN5yGUTCHoaDTC8FH4SccENQXB BF+g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWfUWYtl3nXAmgFkCuaAK2gjMrBcLJDlaKbn6SPKGyqOMWlvuTnEEnWaJuv6Sk3MaqXgqNiHd6X8ZRpFu4T MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.55.26.27 with SMTP id a27mr6832423qka.95.1462189859678; Mon, 02 May 2016 04:50:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.99.73 with HTTP; Mon, 2 May 2016 04:50:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 13:50:59 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: [testuite,AArch64] Make scan for 'br' more robust From: Christophe Lyon To: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 2016-05-02 Christophe Lyon * gcc.target/aarch64/noplt_3.c: Scan for "br\t". * gcc.target/aarch64/tail_indirect_call_1.c: Likewise. 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" } } */ /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "blr" } } */ void f1 (FP fp, int n)