This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Relax check against commuting XOR and ASHIFTRT in combine.c
- From: Rainer Orth <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE>
- To: Andreas Schwab <schwab at linux-m68k dot org>
- Cc: Alan Lawrence <alan dot lawrence at arm dot com>, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, "gcc-patches\ at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 15:10:31 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Relax check against commuting XOR and ASHIFTRT in combine.c
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <53B1B4FE dot 7010201 at arm dot com> <53B1D271 dot 5000405 at redhat dot com> <53C69926 dot 4050503 at arm dot com> <53C80023 dot 6000100 at arm dot com> <5409FBB1 dot 3040509 at redhat dot com> <541AA89C dot 9070005 at arm dot com> <87ppe70wld dot fsf at igel dot home>
Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> writes:
> Alan Lawrence <alan.lawrence@arm.com> writes:
>
>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/combine_ashiftrt_1.c
>> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/combine_ashiftrt_1.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index
>> 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..90e64fd10dc358f10ad03a90041605bc3ccb7011
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/combine_ashiftrt_1.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
>> +/* { dg-do compile {target sparc64*-*-* aarch64*-*-* x86_64-*-*
>> powerpc64*-*-*} } */
>
> You should check for lp64 instead of matching 64 in target names, to
> reject -m32.
>
>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/combine_ashiftrt_2.c
>> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/combine_ashiftrt_2.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index
>> 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fd6827caed230ea5dd2d6ec4431b11bf826531ea
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/combine_ashiftrt_2.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
>> +/* { dg-do compile {target arm*-*-* i?86-*-* powerpc-*-* sparc-*-*} } */
>
> Likewise, using ilp32 to reject -m64.
Right, the current target lists are simply bogus on biarch targets.
Alan, what's the reasoning behind your current target lists here? Any
reason the test couldn't work elsewhere? If not, it would be way better
to introduce a corresponding effective-target keyword than listing
particular targets without explanation.
This needs to be fixed: the issue is knowns for three weeks now and
causes testsuite noise on many platforms.
Rainer
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University