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: Michael Collison <Michael dot Collison at arm dot com>
- To: James Greenhalgh <James dot Greenhalgh at arm dot com>, Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo dot tkachov at foss dot arm dot com>
- Cc: "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 <nd at arm dot com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 09:06:03 +0000
- Subject: RE: [Aarch64][PATCH] Fix gcc.dg/zero_bits_compound-2.c for aarch64
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Michael dot Collison at arm dot com;
- Nodisclaimer: True
- References: <HE1PR0802MB2377B3AE794BF749D4C828A395820@HE1PR0802MB2377.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <5875FDD6.6000809@foss.arm.com> <20170111095010.GA28187@arm.com>
- Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
- Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
Committed.
-----Original Message-----
From: James Greenhalgh [mailto:james.greenhalgh@arm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 2:50 AM
To: Kyrill Tkachov
Cc: Michael Collison; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Christophe Lyon; Richard Earnshaw; nd
Subject: Re: [Aarch64][PATCH] Fix gcc.dg/zero_bits_compound-2.c for aarch64
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