On 07/06/2016 01:30 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
This might be a bit confusing when more tests are added, since
pointer equality is only useful in certain specific cases (e.g.
when you know you're dealing with CONST_INTs or pseudo registers).
How about making ASSERT_RTX_EQ check for rtx_equal_p equality and
have something like ASSERT_RTX_PTR_EQ for cases where pointer
equality really is needed?
Also, how about using LAST_VIRTUAL_REGISTER + 1 as the base for
register numbers? DImode might not be valid for register 0 on all
targets.
Thanks. Here's an updated version which adds both ASSERT_RTX_EQ and
ASSERT_RTX_PTR_EQ. The simplify-rtx.c tests can use the stricter
pointer equality test, so I updated them to use ASSERT_RTX_PTR_EQ
condition.
Richard S. is definitely right here WRT using pointer equality vs deeper
inspection. The RTL structure sharing rules within GCC are something
you have to be cognizant of here. Thankfully the RTL structure sharing
is reasonably well documented.
I added a selftest::make_test_reg to allocate pseudo regs, starting
at LAST_VIRTUAL_REGISTER + 1.
Also the right thing to do. There's hard registers, then virtuals, then
pseudos.
There's obviously much more we could do with the tests, but this is a
reasonable start.
I note you iterate over all the modes -- which would include things like
FP modes, BImode, and CC special modes and such. I don't think we can
necessarily be sure that the transformations you're testing are valid
across all modes.
For example, does it even make sense to test (A & B) | A -> A for FP modes?
It almost seems like the iteration space has to be dependent on what
you're testing. Ie, some tests you want to iterate over the standard
integer modes. Other tests you might reasonably include FP modes. CC
modes I think should be forbidden for these tests. THere may be others
to ponder as well.
jeff
