Re: [testsuite][arm] Fix cmse-15.c expected output

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

On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 12:31, Andre Vieira (lists)
<andre.simoesdiasvieira@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On 06/04/2020 16:12, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > While checking Martin's fix for PR ipa/94445, he made me realize that
> > the cmse-15.c testcase still fails at -Os because ICF means that we
> > generate
> > nonsecure2:
> >          b       nonsecure0
> >
> > which is OK, but does not match the currently expected
> > nonsecure2:
> > ...
> >          bl      __gnu_cmse_nonsecure_call
> >
> > (see https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-April/543190.html)
> >
> > The test has already different expectations for v8-M and v8.1-M.
> >
> > I've decided to try to use check-function-bodies to account for the
> > different possibilities:
> > - v8-M vs v8.1-M via two different prefixes
> > - code generation variants (-0?) via multiple regexps
> >
> > I've tested that the test now passes with --target-board=-march=armv8-m.main
> > and --target-board=-march=armv8.1-m.main.
> >
> > I feel this a bit too much of a burden for the purpose, maybe there's
> > a better way of handling all these alternatives (in particular,
> > there's a lot of duplication since the expected code for the secure*
> > functions is the same for v8-M and v8.1-M).
> >
> > OK?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Christophe
> Hi Christophe,
>
> This check-function-bodies functionality is pretty sweet, I assume the (
> A | B ) checks for either of them?

Yes.

> If so that looks like a good improvement. Ideally we'd also check the
> clearing for the v8.1-M cases, but that wasn't there before either and
> they would need again splitting for -mfloat-abi=soft+softfp and
> -mfloat-abi=hard.
>
Not sure what you mean?
The only nonsecure test with the (A|B) construct is:
+*Clear nonsecure2:
+*Clear ...
+*Clear (
+*Clear blxns r[0-3]
+*Clear |
+*Clear b nonsecure0
+*Clear )

So it does check the clearing (blxns), and 'b nonsecure0' is as valid
as the result of the test for nonsecure0.


>
> So yeah this LGTM but you need approval from a port/global maintainer.
>
Thanks

> Cheers,
> Andre