[testcase] Test __attribute__((used)) vs. i386 local calling convention

[Jakub Jelinek]

Hi!

GCC will DTRT, but I couldn't find a testcase that would make sure this is
not broken in the future, so I wrote a test myself (and tested that when
the ", used" tokens are removed, it fails).
Ok to commit to mainline?

2005-01-13  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

	* gcc.dg/i386-asm-4.c: New test.

--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/i386-asm-4.c.jj	2005-01-13 12:24:38.529326402 +0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/i386-asm-4.c	2005-01-13 12:24:34.176100334 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+/* Test if functions marked __attribute__((used)), but with address never
+   taken in C code, don't use alternate calling convention for local
+   functions on IA-32.  */
+/* { dg-do run { target i?86-*-* x86_64-*-* } } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2" } */
+
+extern void abort (void);
+
+static int foo (int, int, int, int) __asm ("foo");
+static __attribute__((noinline, used)) int
+foo (int i, int j, int k, int l)
+{
+  return i + j + k + l;
+}
+
+void
+bar (void)
+{
+  if (foo (1, 2, 3, 4) != 10)
+    abort ();
+}
+
+int (*fn) (int, int, int, int);
+
+void
+baz (void)
+{
+  __asm ("movl $foo, %k0" : "=r" (fn));
+  if (fn (2, 3, 4, 5) != 14)
+    abort ();
+}
+
+int
+main (void)
+{
+  bar ();
+  baz ();
+  return 0;
+}

	Jakub