On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 6:33 AM, Alan Modra <amo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 05:34:17PM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > Hi!
>> >
>> > rs6000_expand_atomic_compare_and_swap uses oldval directly in
>> > a comparison instruction, but oldval might be a CONST_INT not suitable
>> > for the instruction (such as in the testcase below in SImode comparison
>> > 0x8000 constant). We need to force those into register if they don't
>> > satisfy the predicate.
>> >
>> > Bootstrapped/regtested on powerpc64{,le}-linux, ok for trunk?
>> >
>> > 2016-02-03 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
>> >
>> > PR target/69644
>> > * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_expand_atomic_compare_and_swap):
>> > Force oldval into register if it does not satisfy
>> > reg_or_short_operand
>> > predicate. Fix up formatting.
>> >
>> > * gcc.dg/pr69644.c: New test.
>>
>> Okay.
>
> This needs to go on gcc-5 and gcc-4.9 branches too, where it fixes
> pr69146. pr69146 and pr69644 are dups. OK to apply to the branches?
Okay with me, but coordinate with Jakub.
Thanks, David
