On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 11:55:42AM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On 4 May 2016 at 10:43, Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@foss.arm.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Christophe, > > > > > > On 02/05/16 12:50, Christophe Lyon wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I've noticed a "regression" of AArch64's noplt_3.c in the gcc-6-branch > >> because my validation script adds the branch name to gcc/REVISION. > >> > >> As a result scan-assembler-times "br" also matched "gcc-6-branch", > >> hence the failure. > >> > >> The small attached patch replaces "br" by "br\t" to fix the problem. > >> > >> I've also made a similar change to tail_indirect_call_1 although the > >> problem did not happen for this test because it uses scan-assembler > >> instead of scan-assembler-times. I think it's better to make it more > >> robust too. > >> > >> OK? > >> > >> Christophe > > > > > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/noplt_3.c > > b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/noplt_3.c > > index ef6e65d..a382618 100644 > > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/noplt_3.c > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/noplt_3.c > > @@ -16,5 +16,5 @@ cal_novalue (int a) > > dec (a); > > } > > -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "br" 2 } } */ > > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "br\t" 2 } } */ > > /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "b\t" } } */ > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/tail_indirect_call_1.c > > b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/tail_indirect_call_1.c > > index 4759d20..e863323 100644 > > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/tail_indirect_call_1.c > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/tail_indirect_call_1.c > > @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ > > typedef void FP (int); > > -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "br" } } */ > > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "br\t" } } */ > > > > Did you mean to make this scan-assembler-times as well? > > > > I kept the changes minimal, but you are right, it would be more robust > as attached. > > OK for trunk and gcc-6 branch?
OK. If you want completeness on this, the gcc.target/aarch64/tail_indirect_call_1.c change should go back to the gcc-5 branch too. Cheers, James