On 13 May 2016 at 15:51, James Greenhalgh <james.greenha...@arm.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
Thanks, I've committed to trunk, backported to gcc-6,
and partially to gcc-5.
Christophe.
> Cheers,
> James
>
