This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Aarch64][PATCH] Fix gcc.dg/zero_bits_compound-2.c for aarch64
- From: James Greenhalgh <james dot greenhalgh at arm dot com>
- To: Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo dot tkachov at foss dot arm dot com>
- Cc: Michael Collison <Michael dot Collison at arm dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Christophe Lyon <christophe dot lyon at linaro dot org>, Richard Earnshaw <Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com>, <nd at arm dot com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 09:50:10 +0000
- Subject: Re: [Aarch64][PATCH] Fix gcc.dg/zero_bits_compound-2.c for aarch64
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: spf=pass (sender IP is 217.140.96.140) smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; linaro.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;linaro.org; dmarc=bestguesspass action=none header.from=arm.com;
- Nodisclaimer: True
- References: <HE1PR0802MB2377B3AE794BF749D4C828A395820@HE1PR0802MB2377.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <5875FDD6.6000809@foss.arm.com>
- Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
- Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 09:41:42AM +0000, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> On 06/12/16 00:46, Michael Collison wrote:
> >This patches fixes a regression in gcc.dg/zero_bits_compound-2.c. A recent patch (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg02392.html)
> >to the aarch64 backend improved generation for 'and' instructions with constants. The patch changed the number of 'and' instruction generated
> > at the assembly level causing the test case to fail. This patch fixes the test case for aarch64 by verifies the 'and' insns at the rtl level instead at assembly time.
> >
> >A 'make check' was successfully completed aarch64-linux-gnu and x86_64-linux-gnu.
> >
> >Okay for trunk?
>
> Looks reasonable to me but since the changes are aarch64-specific, I think it
> needs an approval from an aarch64 perspective.
OK.
I think that's a bit pedantic for a testsuite change which is
obvious (as this is, it just changes where we do the validation while
maintaining the spirit of the test). Personally, I'd have applied it
under the 'obvious' rule.
Thanks,
James