From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-380021-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 29551 invoked by alias); 9 Oct 2014 12:20:33 -0000
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
Received: (qmail 29540 invoked by uid 89); 9 Oct 2014 12:20:31 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mail-qg0-f54.google.com
Received: from mail-qg0-f54.google.com (HELO mail-qg0-f54.google.com) (209.85.192.54) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 12:20:30 +0000
Received: by mail-qg0-f54.google.com with SMTP id z107so1618628qgd.41        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 05:20:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;        d=1e100.net; s=20130820;        h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date         :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;        bh=VyUkWVdIWhlGtr+GsWUZroSRcI1z1IDXQ+P2swDb2P4=;        b=EaJC3Ebrisf0YxmtohKFBU+rlqw4H5ibpd9Hoklu7syyVD5o9yEybdRRrVAnkmUl7I         UIBLOdnKPVuw0QqIlzO0DhSvT0HVRjjla30RwOgpDHHQcuqgKT+8bWzK+DCwVvpv6QzD         Hk10iee1kxu0mcrzsw50oBYvIcxS1GsxAjgLzrDyrQG/AHg5chFJK0cUHswqPCVp1FuE         j+7pN8el1JbNoPij651oJpoD6fkAofudqumMVT9fh/JiGtcLnUBMXTGlPLD7XGaXgQiv         CJVqlS6oc08Wuvddh6hRuFIy/czQHT+JVxKYzc385AApEZ/B8q2ugzefka0ZAaTdYAHG         MbHw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnLiSuqUVWx2yWXIrGfaBL6U3HAxLQjYAa++QAGcxPe0WYEnPDQinJ8gURft/D2zXM0GaZ4
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.229.121.7 with SMTP id f7mr23306305qcr.28.1412857228037; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 05:20:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.86.114 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 05:20:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140925193048.GC3802@gate.crashing.org>
References: <54238FEF.6030006@linaro.org>	<CA+=Sn1mRZV6pn9urzkwJ_FP=7yVvfBLUEVwsievQE6DZAs+F7Q@mail.gmail.com>	<54239551.6090400@linaro.org>	<CA+=Sn1=knOQxDzJQRM8PshFbdo+-x22k1LWx5Nb6FiS+=j_p5Q@mail.gmail.com>	<54239657.4090208@linaro.org>	<CA+=Sn1ko=eHfibkRe1xoWYTNp5E3_DjWgL3hMK5Dsx94ayJhjQ@mail.gmail.com>	<20140925101234.GA14286@gate.crashing.org>	<542451DD.1070808@linaro.org>	<20140925193048.GC3802@gate.crashing.org>
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 12:28:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAKdteOYe1ePowmaHX9KUfeJFnE3_JDvK_T3+FWk-TcHLGLRpMg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [AArch64] Fix predicate and constraint mismatch in logical atomic operations
From: Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Michael Collison <michael.collison@linaro.org>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com>, 	GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg00796.txt.bz2

On 25 September 2014 21:30, Segher Boessenkool
<segher@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 10:33:17AM -0700, Michael Collison wrote:
>> The problem is the "CONST_INT 0", not a large constant. This constant is
>> not accepted by the predicate, but is accepted by the constraint.
>
> Yes, bad choice of words, sorry.  Just read "big" as "not matching the
> predicate".  The point is that everything works fine until RA, and that
> makes it hard to make a useful test.
>

Hi,

IIUC, a testcase is not required/practicable.
So, may I ping this patch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg02209.html

Thanks,

Christophe.

>
> Segher
>
>
> p.s.  Please don't top-post.  Thanks.