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: gcc.target/powerpc vs -m64

From: Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel dot crashing dot org>
To: Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo dot msbb dot uc dot edu>
Cc: echristo at apple dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, geoffk at apple dot com, mrs at apple dot com
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 01:09:33 +0200
Subject: Re: gcc.target/powerpc vs -m64
References: <20060831033437.80DCF11000B@bromo.msbb.uc.edu>

FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ppc-and-1.c scan-assembler rlwinm [0-9]+, [0-9]+,0,0,30 FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ppc-and-1.c scan-assembler rlwinm [0-9]+, [0-9]+,0,29,30 FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ppc-negeq0-1.c scan-assembler-not cntlzw

are a tad confusing because if I do...
gcc-4 -O2 -m64 -S -c ppc-and-1.c
grep rlwinm ppc-and-1.s
        rlwinm r4,r4,0,0,30
        rlwinm r4,r4,0,29,30
grep rldicr ppc-and-1.s
(no results)
This is confusing because it suggests the test *should* be passing!


The Darwin assembler expects GPR references to be written
like "r4", every other assembler wants just "4".  The regexp
in this scan-assembler stmt seems to accept only the latter.
This testcase has been failing on Darwin since forever I expect?

Segher

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