Hi Sam On 04/01/19 10:26, Sam Tebbs wrote: > > On 12/19/18 4:47 PM, Sam Tebbs wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Since r265398 (combine: Do not combine moves from hard registers), the bfxil >> scan in gcc.target/aarch64/combine_bfxil.c has been failing. >> >> FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/combine_bfxil.c scan-assembler-times bfxil\\t 13 >> >> This is because bfi was generated for the combine_* functions in the >> above test, >> but as of r265398, bfxil is preferred over bfi and so the bfxil count has >> increased. This patch increases the scan count to 18 to account for this so >> that the test passes. >> >> Before r265398 >> >> combine_zero_extended_int: >> bfxil x0, x1, 0, 16 >> ret >> >> combine_balanced: >> bfi x0, x1, 0, 32 >> ret >> >> combine_minimal: >> bfi x0, x1, 0, 1 >> ret >> >> combine_unbalanced: >> bfi x0, x1, 0, 24 >> ret >> >> combine_balanced_int: >> bfi w0, w1, 0, 16 >> ret >> >> combine_unbalanced_int: >> bfi w0, w1, 0, 8 >> ret >> >> With r265398 >> >> combine_zero_extended_int: >> bfxil x0, x1, 0, 16 >> ret >> >> combine_balanced: >> bfxil x0, x1, 0, 32 >> ret >> >> combine_minimal: >> bfxil x0, x1, 0, 1 >> ret >> >> combine_unbalanced: >> bfxil x0, x1, 0, 24 >> ret >> >> combine_balanced_int: >> bfxil w0, w1, 0, 16 >> ret >> >> combine_unbalanced_int: >> bfxil w0, w1, 0, 8 >> ret >> >> These bfxil and bfi invocations are equivalent, so this patch won't hide any >> incorrect code-gen. >> >> Bootstrapped on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and regression tested on >> aarch64-none-elf with no regressions. >> >> OK for trunk? >>
I am not a maintainer but this looks ok to me on its own. However I see that you commented about this patch on PR87763. Can you please add the PR tag in your changelog entry. Also since I did not see anyone else comment on the PR after your comment, I am adding some of the people from the PR to the cc list. Thanks Sudi >> gcc/testsuite/Changelog: >> >> 2018-12-19 Sam Tebbs <sam.te...@arm.com> >> >> * gcc.target/aarch64/combine_bfxil.c: Change >> scan-assembler-times bfxil count to 18. > ping >