On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Alex Velenko <alex.vele...@arm.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This patch fixes arm/atomic-op-consume.c test to expect safe "LDAEX"
> instruction to be generated when __ATOMIC_CONSUME semantics is requested.
>
> This patch was tested by running the modified test on arm-none-eabi and
> arm-none-linux-gnueabi compilers.
>
> Is this patch ok?
Ok. Please remember James's comments in the future about cover notes.
Ramana
>
> Alex
>
> 2015-01-27 Alex Velenko <alex.vele...@arm.com>
>
> gcc/testsuite/
>
> * gcc.target/arm/atomic-op-consume.c (scan-assember-times): Adjust
> scan-assembler-times pattern.
>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/atomic-op-consume.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/atomic-op-consume.c
> index 0354717..cc6c028 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/atomic-op-consume.c
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/atomic-op-consume.c
> @@ -5,6 +5,9 @@
>
> #include "../aarch64/atomic-op-consume.x"
>
> -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "ldrex\tr\[0-9\]+, \\\[r\[0-9\]+\\\]" 6
> } } */
> +/* To workaround Bugzilla 59448 issue, a request for __ATOMIC_CONSUME is
> always
> + promoted to __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE, implemented as MEMMODEL_ACQUIRE. This
> causes
> + "LDAEX" to be generated instead of "LDREX". */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "ldaex\tr\[0-9\]+, \\\[r\[0-9\]+\\\]" 6
> } } */
> /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "strex\t...?, r\[0-9\]+,
> \\\[r\[0-9\]+\\\]" 6 } } */
> /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "dmb" } } */
