Re: [testuite,AArch64] Make scan for 'br' more robust

[James Greenhalgh <james dot greenhalgh at arm dot com>]

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