[PATCH][ARM/AArch64 Testsuite] Fix vext[us]64_1.c test on ARM by unsharing test body

[PATCH][ARM/AArch64 Testsuite] Fix vext[us]64_1.c test on ARM by unsharing test body

[Alan Lawrence]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1260 bytes --]

Moving into own thread from https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-06/msg01895.html

This fixes the compilation failures of gcc.target/arm/simd/vexts64_1.c and 
gcc.target/arm/simd/vextu64_1.c that I introduced in r by unsharing the test 
body on AArch64. (As [u]int64x1_t are vector types on AArch64 but scalar types 
on ARM.)

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

	* gcc.target/arm/simd/vexts64_1.c: Remove #include, inline test body.
	* gcc.target/arm/simd/vextu64_1.c: Likewise.
	* gcc.target/aarch64/simd/ext_s64_1.c: Likewise.
	* gcc.target/aarch64/simd/ext_u64_1.c: Likewise.
	* gcc.target/aarch64/simd/ext_s64.x: Remove.
	* gcc.target/aarch64/simd/ext_u64.x: Remove.

On arm-none-eabi 
(arm-eabi-aem/-mthumb/-march=armv8-a/-mfpu=crypto-neon-fp-armv8/-mfloat-abi=hard):

FAIL->PASS: gcc.target/arm/simd/vexts64_1.c (test for excess errors)
UNRESOLVED->NA: gcc.target/arm/simd/vexts64_1.c compilation failed to produce 
executable
NA->PASS: gcc.target/arm/simd/vexts64_1.c execution test
FAIL->PASS: gcc.target/arm/simd/vextu64_1.c (test for excess errors)
UNRESOLVED->NA: gcc.target/arm/simd/vextu64_1.c compilation failed to produce 
executable
NA->PASS: gcc.target/arm/simd/vextu64_1.c execution test

No changes on aarch64-none-elf.

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: fix_ext.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch; name=fix_ext.patch, Size: 4699 bytes --]

Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/simd/vexts64_1.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/simd/vexts64_1.c	(revision 211933)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/simd/vexts64_1.c	(working copy)
@@ -6,7 +6,22 @@
 /* { dg-add-options arm_neon } */
 
 #include "arm_neon.h"
-#include "../../aarch64/simd/ext_s64.x"
 
+extern void abort (void);
+
+int
+main (int argc, char **argv)
+{
+  int64_t arr1[] = {0};
+  int64x1_t in1 = vld1_s64 (arr1);
+  int64_t arr2[] = {1};
+  int64x1_t in2 = vld1_s64 (arr2);
+  int64x1_t actual = vext_s64 (in1, in2, 0);
+  if (actual != in1)
+    abort ();
+
+  return 0;
+}
+
 /* Don't scan assembler for vext - it can be optimized into a move from r0.  */
 /* { dg-final { cleanup-saved-temps } } */
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/simd/vextu64_1.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/simd/vextu64_1.c	(revision 211933)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/simd/vextu64_1.c	(working copy)
@@ -6,7 +6,22 @@
 /* { dg-add-options arm_neon } */
 
 #include "arm_neon.h"
-#include "../../aarch64/simd/ext_u64.x"
 
+extern void abort (void);
+
+int
+main (int argc, char **argv)
+{
+  uint64_t arr1[] = {0};
+  uint64x1_t in1 = vld1_u64 (arr1);
+  uint64_t arr2[] = {1};
+  uint64x1_t in2 = vld1_u64 (arr2);
+  uint64x1_t actual = vext_u64 (in1, in2, 0);
+  if (actual != in1)
+    abort ();
+
+  return 0;
+}
+
 /* Don't scan assembler for vext - it can be optimized into a move from r0.  */
 /* { dg-final { cleanup-saved-temps } } */
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/simd/ext_s64.x
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/simd/ext_s64.x	(revision 211933)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/simd/ext_s64.x	(working copy)
@@ -1,17 +0,0 @@
-extern void abort (void);
-
-int
-main (int argc, char **argv)
-{
-  int i, off;
-  int64_t arr1[] = {0};
-  int64x1_t in1 = vld1_s64 (arr1);
-  int64_t arr2[] = {1};
-  int64x1_t in2 = vld1_s64 (arr2);
-  int64x1_t actual = vext_s64 (in1, in2, 0);
-  if (actual[0] != in1[0])
-    abort ();
-
-  return 0;
-}
-
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/simd/ext_u64.x
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/simd/ext_u64.x	(revision 211933)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/simd/ext_u64.x	(working copy)
@@ -1,17 +0,0 @@
-extern void abort (void);
-
-int
-main (int argc, char **argv)
-{
-  int i, off;
-  uint64_t arr1[] = {0};
-  uint64x1_t in1 = vld1_u64 (arr1);
-  uint64_t arr2[] = {1};
-  uint64x1_t in2 = vld1_u64 (arr2);
-  uint64x1_t actual = vext_u64 (in1, in2, 0);
-  if (actual[0] != in1[0])
-    abort ();
-
-  return 0;
-}
-
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/simd/ext_u64_1.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/simd/ext_u64_1.c	(revision 211933)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/simd/ext_u64_1.c	(working copy)
@@ -4,8 +4,23 @@
 /* { dg-options "-save-temps -O3 -fno-inline" } */
 
 #include "arm_neon.h"
-#include "ext_u64.x"
 
+extern void abort (void);
+
+int
+main (int argc, char **argv)
+{
+  uint64_t arr1[] = {0};
+  uint64x1_t in1 = vld1_u64 (arr1);
+  uint64_t arr2[] = {1};
+  uint64x1_t in2 = vld1_u64 (arr2);
+  uint64x1_t actual = vext_u64 (in1, in2, 0);
+  if (actual[0] != in1[0])
+    abort ();
+
+  return 0;
+}
+
 /* Do not scan-assembler.  An EXT instruction could be emitted, but would merely
    return its first argument, so it is legitimate to optimize it out.  */
 /* { dg-final { cleanup-saved-temps } } */
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/simd/ext_s64_1.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/simd/ext_s64_1.c	(revision 211933)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/simd/ext_s64_1.c	(working copy)
@@ -4,8 +4,23 @@
 /* { dg-options "-save-temps -O3 -fno-inline" } */
 
 #include "arm_neon.h"
-#include "ext_s64.x"
 
+extern void abort (void);
+
+int
+main (int argc, char **argv)
+{
+  int64_t arr1[] = {0};
+  int64x1_t in1 = vld1_s64 (arr1);
+  int64_t arr2[] = {1};
+  int64x1_t in2 = vld1_s64 (arr2);
+  int64x1_t actual = vext_s64 (in1, in2, 0);
+  if (actual[0] != in1[0])
+    abort ();
+
+  return 0;
+}
+
 /* Do not scan-assembler.  An EXT instruction could be emitted, but would merely
    return its first argument, so it is legitimate to optimize it out.  */
 /* { dg-final { cleanup-saved-temps } } */

Re: [PATCH][ARM/AArch64 Testsuite] Fix vext[us]64_1.c test on ARM by unsharing test body

[Ramana Radhakrishnan]

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Alan Lawrence <alan.lawrence@arm.com> wrote:
> Moving into own thread from
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-06/msg01895.html
>
> This fixes the compilation failures of gcc.target/arm/simd/vexts64_1.c and
> gcc.target/arm/simd/vextu64_1.c that I introduced in r by unsharing the test
> body on AArch64. (As [u]int64x1_t are vector types on AArch64 but scalar
> types on ARM.)
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
>         * gcc.target/arm/simd/vexts64_1.c: Remove #include, inline test
> body.
>         * gcc.target/arm/simd/vextu64_1.c: Likewise.
>         * gcc.target/aarch64/simd/ext_s64_1.c: Likewise.
>         * gcc.target/aarch64/simd/ext_u64_1.c: Likewise.
>         * gcc.target/aarch64/simd/ext_s64.x: Remove.
>         * gcc.target/aarch64/simd/ext_u64.x: Remove.

Ok - sigh.

Ramana

>
> On arm-none-eabi
> (arm-eabi-aem/-mthumb/-march=armv8-a/-mfpu=crypto-neon-fp-armv8/-mfloat-abi=hard):
>
> FAIL->PASS: gcc.target/arm/simd/vexts64_1.c (test for excess errors)
> UNRESOLVED->NA: gcc.target/arm/simd/vexts64_1.c compilation failed to
> produce executable
> NA->PASS: gcc.target/arm/simd/vexts64_1.c execution test
> FAIL->PASS: gcc.target/arm/simd/vextu64_1.c (test for excess errors)
> UNRESOLVED->NA: gcc.target/arm/simd/vextu64_1.c compilation failed to
> produce executable
> NA->PASS: gcc.target/arm/simd/vextu64_1.c execution test
>
> No changes on aarch64-none-elf.