On 27/01/15 16:13, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
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.
Commited.
Alex
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" } } */
