From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-297132-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 29788 invoked by alias); 18 Jul 2011 13:10:46 -0000
Received: (qmail 29599 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Jul 2011 13:10:44 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:10:27 +0000
Received: (qmail 27018 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2011 13:10:25 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.14?) (cltang@127.0.0.2)  by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 18 Jul 2011 13:10:25 -0000
Message-ID: <4E2430BA.6000906@codesourcery.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 14:30:00 -0000
From: Chung-Lin Tang <cltang@codesourcery.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
CC: gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Canonicalize compares in combine [3/3] ARM backend part
References: <B00D7219-6FA6-4F89-9565-64AB42528458@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <B00D7219-6FA6-4F89-9565-64AB42528458@arm.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------070703010207050508050203"
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-07/txt/msg01401.txt.bz2

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------070703010207050508050203
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-length: 586

On 2011/7/18 04:46 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> The patch to arm.c is ok, but the change to the test is not as it will cause problems with multilib testing.  A better fix is to skip the test if the target is thumb1.
> 
> The other test needs a similar check as it seems to expect a movs instruction.
> 
> R.

Yes it seems more logical to skip for thumb1, at least for the movs one.
For the uxtb test, I think probably using "dg-require-effective-target
arm_thumb2_ok" would be more suitable wrt multilib testing.

Updated patch for the testcase parts, is this okay?

Thanks,
Chung-Lin

--------------070703010207050508050203
Content-Type: text/plain;
 name="testcase.diff"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="testcase.diff"
Content-length: 1039

Index: combine-movs.c
===================================================================
--- combine-movs.c	(revision 0)
+++ combine-movs.c	(revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-skip-if "" { arm_thumb1 } } */
+/* { dg-options "-O" }  */
+
+void foo (unsigned long r[], unsigned int d)
+{
+  int i, n = d / 32;
+  for (i = 0; i < n; ++i)
+    r[i] = 0;
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movs\tr\[0-9\]" } } */
Index: unsigned-extend-2.c
===================================================================
--- unsigned-extend-2.c	(revision 0)
+++ unsigned-extend-2.c	(revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-require-effective-target arm_thumb2_ok } */
+/* { dg-options "-O" } */
+
+unsigned short foo (unsigned short x)
+{
+  unsigned char i = 0;
+  for (i = 0; i < 8; i++)
+    {
+      x >>= 1;
+      x &= 0x7fff;
+    }
+  return x;
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "ands" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "uxtb" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "cmp" } } */

--------------070703010207050508050203--