Re: One more path to fix PR70478

[Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>]

Hi Vladimir,

On 10 April 2017 at 17:05, Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com> wrote:
>   This is the second try to fix
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70478
>
>   The first try patch triggered a latent bug and broke one Fortran testcase
> on x86-64.
>
>   The patch was successfully bootstrapped on x86-64 and tested on x86-64,
> ppc64, and aarch64.
>
>   Committed as rev. 246808.
>
>

This patch causes regression on arm*hf configurations:
  Executed from: gcc.target/arm/arm.exp
    gcc.target/arm/armv8_2-fp16-move-1.c scan-assembler-times ldrh\\tr[0-9]+ 2
    gcc.target/arm/armv8_2-fp16-move-1.c scan-assembler-times strh\\tr[0-9]+ 2
    gcc.target/arm/armv8_2-fp16-move-1.c scan-assembler-times
vld1\\.16\\t{d[0-9]+\\[[0-9]+\\]}, \\[r[0-9]+\\] 2
    gcc.target/arm/armv8_2-fp16-move-1.c scan-assembler-times
vmov\\.f16\\tr[0-9]+, s[0-9]+ 4
    gcc.target/arm/armv8_2-fp16-move-1.c scan-assembler-times
vmov\\.f16\\ts[0-9]+, r[0-9]+ 4
    gcc.target/arm/armv8_2-fp16-move-1.c scan-assembler-times
vst1\\.16\\t{d[0-9]+\\[[0-9]+\\]}, \\[r[0-9]+\\] 2

See http://people.linaro.org/~christophe.lyon/cross-validation/gcc/trunk/246809/report-build-info.html

Is it just a matter of adjusting the testcases? (note that there is no
regression when forcing either:
-march=armv5t
-mthumb/-march=armv8-a/-mfpu=crypto-neon-fp-armv8/-mfloat-abi=hard
in the runtestflags.

I would have to re--run the build/test manually to get the generated
code, let me know if it's needed.

Thanks,

Christophe