This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: [Ping]: [Patch] [AArch64] PR target 66049: fix add/extend gcc test suite failures
- From: "Kumar, Venkataramanan" <Venkataramanan dot Kumar at amd dot com>
- To: James Greenhalgh <james dot greenhalgh at arm dot com>
- Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Marcus Shawcroft <Marcus dot Shawcroft at arm dot com>
- Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 15:34:14 +0000
- Subject: RE: [Ping]: [Patch] [AArch64] PR target 66049: fix add/extend gcc test suite failures
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is 184.108.40.206) smtp.mailfrom=amd.com; arm.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;
- References: <7794A52CE4D579448B959EED7DD0A4723DD0973D at satlexdag06 dot amd dot com> <20150526083926 dot GA23464 at arm dot com>
Committed as https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=223703
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Greenhalgh [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 2:09 PM
> To: Kumar, Venkataramanan
> Cc: email@example.com; Marcus Shawcroft
> Subject: Re: [Ping]: [Patch] [AArch64] PR target 66049: fix add/extend gcc
> test suite failures
> On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 06:39:36AM +0100, Kumar, Venkataramanan wrote:
> > Ping!
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Kumar,
> > Venkataramanan
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 9:07 PM
> > To: James Greenhalgh (firstname.lastname@example.org);
> > email@example.com
> > Cc: Kyrill Tkachov (firstname.lastname@example.org);
> > email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Marcus
> > Shawcroft (email@example.com)
> > Subject: [Patch] [AArch64] PR target 66049: fix add/extend gcc test
> > suite failures
> > Hi Maintainers,
> > Please find the attached patch, that fixes add/extend gcc test suite failures
> in Aarch64 target.
> > Ref: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66049
> > These tests started to fail after we prevented combiner from
> > converting shift RTX to mult RTX, when the RTX is not inside a memory
> operation (r222874) .
> > Now I have added new add/extend patterns which are based on shift
> > operations, to fix these cases.
> > Testing status with the patch.
> > (1) GCC bootstrap on AArch64 successful.
> > (2) SPEC2006 INT runs did not show any degradation.
> > (3) gcc regression testing passed.
> Perfect, thank you.
> > Is this OK for trunk ?
> Yup, this is OK for trunk. Make sure you reference the PR number in the
> ChangeLog entry and close off the BZ entry when this is done.
> Thanks again for your patience.
> > +;; zero_extend version of above
> > +(define_insn "*add_uxtsi_shift2_uxtw"
> > + [(set (match_operand:DI 0 "register_operand" "=rk")
> > + (zero_extend:DI
> > + (plus:SI (and:SI
> > + (ashift:SI (match_operand:SI 1 "register_operand" "r")
> > + (match_operand 2 "aarch64_imm3" "Ui3"))
> > + (match_operand 3 "const_int_operand" "n"))
> > + (match_operand:SI 4 "register_operand" "r"))))]
> > + "aarch64_uxt_size (INTVAL (operands), INTVAL (operands)) != 0"
> > + "*
> > + operands = GEN_INT (aarch64_uxt_size (INTVAL (operands),
> > + INTVAL (operands)));
> > + return \"add\t%w0, %w4, %w1, uxt%e3 %2\";"
> > + [(set_attr "type" "alu_ext")]
> > +)
> > +
> You don't have to fix it in this patch (as it matches existing style), but if you
> are looking for a cleanup, we should use the
> /* Code */
> syntax in these patterns and avoid all the escaping of '"'.