From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14814 invoked by alias); 19 Jun 2014 20:19:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 14795 invoked by uid 89); 19 Jun 2014 20:19:11 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mail-we0-f180.google.com Received: from mail-we0-f180.google.com (HELO mail-we0-f180.google.com) (74.125.82.180) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 20:19:10 +0000 Received: by mail-we0-f180.google.com with SMTP id x48so2827524wes.25 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 13:19:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.84.226 with SMTP id c2mr9399496wiz.50.1403209147575; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 13:19:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.7.1 with HTTP; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 13:19:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <53A30620.8020009@arm.com> References: <000b01cf8bcf$f6e83d20$e4b8b760$@samsung.com> <53A30620.8020009@arm.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 20:19:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix for PR 61561 From: Yuri Gribov To: Richard Earnshaw Cc: Marat Zakirov , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , "ktkachov@gcc.gnu.org" , Gribov Yury , Slava Garbuzov , Marat Zakirov Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-SW-Source: 2014-06/txt/msg01563.txt.bz2 > Thirdly, we also need to fix movhi_bytes (for pre-v4) thumb2_movhi_insn > (for thumb2) and, quite possibly, thumb1_movhi_insn (for thumb1). There > may well be additional changes for movqi variants as well. A general question: how should one test ARM backend patches? Is it enough to regtest ARM and Thumb2 on some modern Cortex? If not - what other variants should be tested? -Y