This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: i386-cmov1.c broken


> On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 06:04:51PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > In auditing the GCC tests, I think that gcc.dg/i386-cmov1.c is passing
> > > > "by accident".
> > > > 
> > > > In particular, this test seems to be trying to verify that the "sar"
> > > > instruction is being used with "magic_namec" by scanning the assembly
> > > > file.
> > > > 
> > > > However, that's not actually happening.
> > > > 
> > > > The scan-assembler test:
> > > > 
> > > >   /* { dg-final { scan-assembler "sar.*magic_namec" } } */
> > > > 
> > > > which is trying to test for this is busted because "." in Tcl includes
> > > > "\n", i.e., the newline character.
> > > Oops, thi sis ugly.  Tranks for noticing that, Mark!
> > > I will fix the i386-* tests tonight.
> > 
> > Hi,
> > the failures in the tests are caused by the fact that we no longer default to
> > -mcpu=k8 when -march=k8 is specified.  I am testing the attached patch to
> > update the SPEC files and will commit it as obivous assuming the testsuite
> > passes.
> > 
> > Daniel, I guess the other targets you've modified will need similar updates.
> 
>   if (!ix86_tune_string && ix86_arch_string)
>     ix86_tune_string = ix86_arch_string;
>   if (!ix86_tune_string)
>     ix86_tune_string = cpu_names [TARGET_CPU_DEFAULT];
> 
> Blast, I thought I checked for that - you're right, -march took
> precedence over the config triplet.  Thanks for figuring this out.
> 
> I'm pretty sure I got all the other targets right but I'll give them
> another going-over later.

There is yet another small problem in your patch I just run across.
At the x86_64 cc1 used to default into k8 code generation, while it now
default into i386 that makes it to just error out.
When called via xgcc everything is OK, but it is somewhat anoying when
you start it by hand.  I am testing patch to set TARGET_CPU_DEFAULT into
k8 for 64bit compiler to avoid this but the idea that cc1 now defaults
into something different than xgcc looks bit unconfortable to me.
At least I often call cc1 by hand and do not expect this.

Honza
> 
> -- 
> Daniel Jacobowitz
> MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]