* [PATCH] fix testcase gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c
@ 2020-08-17 2:57 Qian Jianhua
2020-08-26 10:08 ` Richard Sandiford
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Qian Jianhua @ 2020-08-17 2:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-patches
There are three failures in gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c.
FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler bfi\tx[0-9]+, x[0-9]+, 0, 8
FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler bfi\tx[0-9]+, x[0-9]+, 16, 5
FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler movk\tx[0-9]+, 0x1d6b, lsl 32
This patch fix the third failure which was missed "#" before immediate value
in scan-assembler.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c: Add '#' in scan-assembler
---
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c
index 360a9892ad9..9efa22e649d 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c
@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ bfi2 (bitfield a)
bitfield
movk (bitfield a)
{
- /* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movk\tx\[0-9\]+, 0x1d6b, lsl 32" } } */
+ /* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movk\tx\[0-9\]+, #0x1d6b, lsl 32" } } */
a.sixteen = 7531;
return a;
}
--
2.18.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] fix testcase gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c
2020-08-17 2:57 [PATCH] fix testcase gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c Qian Jianhua
@ 2020-08-26 10:08 ` Richard Sandiford
2020-08-27 3:25 ` Qian, Jianhua
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Richard Sandiford @ 2020-08-26 10:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Qian Jianhua; +Cc: gcc-patches
Qian Jianhua <qianjh@cn.fujitsu.com> writes:
> There are three failures in gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c.
> FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler bfi\tx[0-9]+, x[0-9]+, 0, 8
> FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler bfi\tx[0-9]+, x[0-9]+, 16, 5
> FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler movk\tx[0-9]+, 0x1d6b, lsl 32
>
> This patch fix the third failure which was missed "#" before immediate value
> in scan-assembler.
Thanks, pushed to master.
Richard
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c: Add '#' in scan-assembler
>
> ---
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c
> index 360a9892ad9..9efa22e649d 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c
> @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ bfi2 (bitfield a)
> bitfield
> movk (bitfield a)
> {
> - /* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movk\tx\[0-9\]+, 0x1d6b, lsl 32" } } */
> + /* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movk\tx\[0-9\]+, #0x1d6b, lsl 32" } } */
> a.sixteen = 7531;
> return a;
> }
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* RE: [PATCH] fix testcase gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c
2020-08-26 10:08 ` Richard Sandiford
@ 2020-08-27 3:25 ` Qian, Jianhua
2020-08-27 8:01 ` Richard Sandiford
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Qian, Jianhua @ 2020-08-27 3:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Sandiford; +Cc: gcc-patches
Hi Richard
I found that some instructions are using '#' before immediate value，
and others are not. For example
(define_insn "insv_imm<mode>"
[(set (zero_extract:GPI (match_operand:GPI 0 "register_operand" "+r")
(const_int 16)
(match_operand:GPI 1 "const_int_operand" "n"))
(match_operand:GPI 2 "const_int_operand" "n"))]
"UINTVAL (operands[1]) < GET_MODE_BITSIZE (<MODE>mode)
&& UINTVAL (operands[1]) % 16 == 0"
"movk\\t%<w>0, %X2, lsl %1"
[(set_attr "type" "mov_imm")]
)
Are there any standards for this?
Regards
Qian
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 6:09 PM
To: Qian, Jianhua/钱 建华 <qianjh@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix testcase gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c
Qian Jianhua <qianjh@cn.fujitsu.com> writes:
> There are three failures in gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c.
> FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler bfi\tx[0-9]+,
> x[0-9]+, 0, 8
> FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler bfi\tx[0-9]+,
> x[0-9]+, 16, 5
> FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler movk\tx[0-9]+,
> 0x1d6b, lsl 32
>
> This patch fix the third failure which was missed "#" before immediate
> value in scan-assembler.
Thanks, pushed to master.
Richard
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c: Add '#' in scan-assembler
>
> ---
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c
> index 360a9892ad9..9efa22e649d 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c
> @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ bfi2 (bitfield a)
> bitfield
> movk (bitfield a)
> {
> - /* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movk\tx\[0-9\]+, 0x1d6b, lsl 32" }
> } */
> + /* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movk\tx\[0-9\]+, #0x1d6b, lsl 32" }
> + } */
> a.sixteen = 7531;
> return a;
> }
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] fix testcase gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c
2020-08-27 3:25 ` Qian, Jianhua
@ 2020-08-27 8:01 ` Richard Sandiford
2020-08-27 8:39 ` Iain Sandoe
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Richard Sandiford @ 2020-08-27 8:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Qian, Jianhua; +Cc: gcc-patches
"Qian, Jianhua" <qianjh@cn.fujitsu.com> writes:
> Hi Richard
>
> I found that some instructions are using '#' before immediate value，
> and others are not. For example
> (define_insn "insv_imm<mode>"
> [(set (zero_extract:GPI (match_operand:GPI 0 "register_operand" "+r")
> (const_int 16)
> (match_operand:GPI 1 "const_int_operand" "n"))
> (match_operand:GPI 2 "const_int_operand" "n"))]
> "UINTVAL (operands[1]) < GET_MODE_BITSIZE (<MODE>mode)
> && UINTVAL (operands[1]) % 16 == 0"
> "movk\\t%<w>0, %X2, lsl %1"
> [(set_attr "type" "mov_imm")]
> )
>
> Are there any standards for this?
No, it's unfortunately inconsistent. FWIW, if we were going to change this,
personally I've a slight preference for having the “#”.
Thanks,
Richard
>
> Regards
> Qian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 6:09 PM
> To: Qian, Jianhua/钱 建华 <qianjh@cn.fujitsu.com>
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix testcase gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c
>
> Qian Jianhua <qianjh@cn.fujitsu.com> writes:
>> There are three failures in gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c.
>> FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler bfi\tx[0-9]+,
>> x[0-9]+, 0, 8
>> FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler bfi\tx[0-9]+,
>> x[0-9]+, 16, 5
>> FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler movk\tx[0-9]+,
>> 0x1d6b, lsl 32
>>
>> This patch fix the third failure which was missed "#" before immediate
>> value in scan-assembler.
>
> Thanks, pushed to master.
>
> Richard
>
>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>
>> * gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c: Add '#' in scan-assembler
>>
>> ---
>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c
>> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c
>> index 360a9892ad9..9efa22e649d 100644
>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c
>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c
>> @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ bfi2 (bitfield a)
>> bitfield
>> movk (bitfield a)
>> {
>> - /* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movk\tx\[0-9\]+, 0x1d6b, lsl 32" }
>> } */
>> + /* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movk\tx\[0-9\]+, #0x1d6b, lsl 32" }
>> + } */
>> a.sixteen = 7531;
>> return a;
>> }
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] fix testcase gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c
2020-08-27 8:01 ` Richard Sandiford
@ 2020-08-27 8:39 ` Iain Sandoe
2020-08-28 2:53 ` Qian, Jianhua
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Iain Sandoe @ 2020-08-27 8:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Sandiford; +Cc: Qian, Jianhua, gcc-patches
Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com> wrote:
> "Qian, Jianhua" <qianjh@cn.fujitsu.com> writes:
>> Hi Richard
>>
>> I found that some instructions are using '#' before immediate value，
>> and others are not. For example
>> (define_insn "insv_imm<mode>"
>> [(set (zero_extract:GPI (match_operand:GPI 0 "register_operand" "+r")
>> (const_int 16)
>> (match_operand:GPI 1 "const_int_operand" "n"))
>> (match_operand:GPI 2 "const_int_operand" "n"))]
>> "UINTVAL (operands[1]) < GET_MODE_BITSIZE (<MODE>mode)
>> && UINTVAL (operands[1]) % 16 == 0"
>> "movk\\t%<w>0, %X2, lsl %1"
>> [(set_attr "type" "mov_imm")]
>> )
>>
>> Are there any standards for this?
>
> No, it's unfortunately inconsistent. FWIW, if we were going to change
> this,
> personally I've a slight preference for having the “#”.
Absence of the # makes assemblers based on the LLVM backend reject GCC’s
output, as such I’ve got a strong preference for adding it (I’ve got some
local
patches for this already).
e.g.
https://github.com/iains/gcc-darwin-arm64/commit/526ffb6b34ddb848853016cd14a438683aa0e6de
(hacking branch, please don’t shoot me, yet :) )
Iain
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* RE: [PATCH] fix testcase gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c
2020-08-27 8:39 ` Iain Sandoe
@ 2020-08-28 2:53 ` Qian, Jianhua
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Qian, Jianhua @ 2020-08-28 2:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Iain Sandoe, Richard Sandiford; +Cc: gcc-patches
Hi Iain
Iain Sandoe <idsandoe@googlemail.com> wrote:
>Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com> wrote:
>> "Qian, Jianhua" <qianjh@cn.fujitsu.com> writes:
>>> Hi Richard
>>>
>>> I found that some instructions are using '#' before immediate value，
>>> and others are not. For example
>>> (define_insn "insv_imm<mode>"
>>> [(set (zero_extract:GPI (match_operand:GPI 0 "register_operand" "+r")
>>>
>>>
>>> (match_operand:GPI 2 "const_int_operand" "n"))] "UINTVAL
>>> (operands[1]) < GET_MODE_BITSIZE (<MODE>mode)
>>> && UINTVAL (operands[1]) % 16 == 0"
>>> "movk\\t%<w>0, %X2, lsl %1"
>>> [(set_attr "type" "mov_imm")]
>>> )
>>>
>>> Are there any standards for this?
>>
>> No, it's unfortunately inconsistent. FWIW, if we were going to change
>> this, personally I've a slight preference for having the “#”.
>
>Absence of the # makes assemblers based on the LLVM backend reject GCC’s output, as such I’ve got a strong preference for adding it (I’ve got some local patches for this already).
>e.g.
>https://github.com/iains/gcc-darwin-arm64/commit/526ffb6b34ddb848853016cd14a438683aa0e6de
That's good, we are of the same mind..
Regards
Qian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-08-28 2:53 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-08-17 2:57 [PATCH] fix testcase gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c Qian Jianhua
2020-08-26 10:08 ` Richard Sandiford
2020-08-27 3:25 ` Qian, Jianhua
2020-08-27 8:01 ` Richard Sandiford
2020-08-27 8:39 ` Iain Sandoe
2020-08-28 2:53 ` Qian, Jianhua
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).