Hi all,
On 18/09/18 00:00, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018, 23:56 Christophe Lyon, <christophe.l...@linaro.org>
wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 at 12:04, Sam Tebbs <sam.te...@arm.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 08/28/2018 11:54 PM, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > OK once the other one is approved, with the obvious rebase over the
> renamed
> > > function.
> > >
> > > James
> >
> > Here is the rebased patch. Still OK for me to commit to trunk now that
> > the other patch has been committed?
> >
> > Sam
> >
> > >
> > >> gcc/
> > >> 2018-07-31 Sam Tebbs <sam.te...@arm.com>
> > >>
> > >> PR target/85628
> > >> * config/aarch64/aarch64.md (*aarch64_bfxilsi_uxtw): Define.
> > >>
> > >> gcc/testsuite
> > >> 2018-07-31 Sam Tebbs <sam.te...@arm.com>
> > >>
> > >> PR target/85628
> > >> * gcc.target/aarch64/combine_bfxil.c
> > >> (combine_zero_extended_int, foo6):
> > >> New functions.
> >
>
> Hi Sam,
>
> This patch causes a regression when using -mabi=ilp32:
> FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/combine_bfxil.c scan-assembler-not uxtw\\t
>
> How much do we care about ilp32?
>
Lets keep the testsuite clean please.
This is due to the foo* functions in the test that take a pointer argument and
store results into it.
In ILP32 the callee clears the top bits with a uxtw. This is irrelevant to the
pattern this test is exercising.
I'll fix up the test.
Thanks,
Kyrill
Ramana
>
> Christophe
>