On Mon, 2020-04-27 at 16:01 -0400, Michael Meissner via Gcc-patches wrote:
> This patch adds PC-relative tests for -mcpu=future.
>
> This is patch #6 of 7. I have checked this on a little endian power8 system
> running Linux, and all tests passed. Can I check this into the GCC 10 trunk?
>
> 2020-04-27 Michael Meissner <meiss...@linux.ibm.com>
>
> * gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-pcrel.h: New set of tests to test
> prefixed addressing on 'future' system with PC-relative addresses
> for various types.
> * gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-pcrel-dd.c: New test for prefixed
> loads/stores with PC-relative addresses for the _Decimal64 type.
> * gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-pcrel-df.c: New test for prefixed
> loads/stores with PC-relative addresses for the double type.
> * gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-pcrel-di.c: New test for prefixed
> loads/stores with PC-relative addresses for the long type.
> * gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-pcrel-hi.c: New test for prefixed
> loads/stores with PC-relative addresses for the short type.
> * gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-pcrel-kf.c: New test for prefixed
> loads/stores with PC-relative addresses for the __float128 type.
> * gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-pcrel-qi.c: New test for prefixed
> loads/stores with PC-relative addresses for the signed char type.
> * gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-pcrel-sd.c: New test for prefixed
> loads/stores with PC-relative addresses for the _Decimal32 type.
> * gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-pcrel-sf.c: New test for prefixed
> loads/stores with PC-relative addresses for the float type.
> * gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-pcrel-si.c: New test for prefixed
> loads/stores with PC-relative addresses for the int type.
> * gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-pcrel-udi.c: New test for prefixed
> loads/stores with PC-relative addresses for the unsigned long
> type.
> * gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-pcrel-uhi.c: New test for prefixed
> loads/stores with PC-relative addresses for the unsigned short
> type.
> * gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-pcrel-uqi.c: New test for prefixed
> loads/stores with PC-relative addresses for the unsigned char
> type.
> * gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-pcrel-usi.c: New test for prefixed
> loads/stores with PC-relative addresses for the unsigned int
> type.
> * gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-pcrel-v2df.c: New test for prefixed
> loads/stores with PC-relative addresses for the vector double
> type.
>
> --- /tmp/61oqzU_prefix-pcrel-dd.c 2020-04-27 14:11:22.981249397 -0400
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-pcrel-dd.c 2020-04-27
> 14:11:22.751252547 -0400
> @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_pcrel } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -mdejagnu-cpu=future" } */
> +
> +/* Tests for prefixed instructions testing whether pc-relative prefixed
> + instructions are generated for the _Decimal64 type. */
Too many test references?
Should that be simply "Test whether pc-relative prefixed instructions
are generated for the _Decimal64 type."
(Same repeated later in the patch).
> +
> +#define TYPE _Decimal64
> +
> +#include "prefix-pcrel.h"
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {[@]pcrel} 4 } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mplfd\M} 2 } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mpstfd\M} 2 } } */
> --- /tmp/w5tyiy_prefix-pcrel-df.c 2020-04-27 14:11:22.990249274 -0400
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-pcrel-df.c 2020-04-27
> 14:11:22.755252492 -0400
> @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_pcrel } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -mdejagnu-cpu=future" } */
> +
> +/* Tests for prefixed instructions testing whether pc-relative prefixed
> + instructions are generated for the double type. */
> +
> +#define TYPE double
> +
> +#include "prefix-pcrel.h"
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {[@]pcrel} 4 } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mplfd\M} 2 } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mpstfd\M} 2 } } */
> --- /tmp/uE672b_prefix-pcrel-di.c 2020-04-27 14:11:22.998249164 -0400
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-pcrel-di.c 2020-04-27
> 14:11:22.759252437 -0400
> @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_pcrel } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -mdejagnu-cpu=future" } */
> +
> +/* Tests for prefixed instructions testing whether pc-relative prefixed
> + instructions are generated for the long type. */
> +
> +#define TYPE long
> +
> +#include "prefix-pcrel.h"
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {[@]pcrel} 4 } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mpld\M} 2 } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mpstd\M} 2 } } */
> --- /tmp/UHt8OP_prefix-pcrel-hi.c 2020-04-27 14:11:23.005249069 -0400
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-pcrel-hi.c 2020-04-27
> 14:11:22.763252383 -0400
> @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_pcrel } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -mdejagnu-cpu=future" } */
> +
> +/* Tests for prefixed instructions testing whether pc-relative prefixed
> + instructions are generated for the short type. */
> +
> +#define TYPE short
> +
> +#include "prefix-pcrel.h"
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {[@]pcrel} 4 } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mplh[az]\M} 2 } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mpsth\M} 2 } } */
<snip>
> --- /tmp/mOOQPU_prefix-pcrel.h 2020-04-27 14:11:23.087247946 -0400
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-pcrel.h 2020-04-27
> 14:11:22.803251835 -0400
> @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
> +/* Common tests for prefixed instructions testing whether pc-relative
> prefixed
> + instructions are generated for each type. */
> +
> +typedef signed char schar;
> +typedef unsigned char uchar;
> +typedef unsigned short ushort;
> +typedef unsigned int uint;
> +typedef unsigned long ulong;
> +typedef long double ldouble;
> +typedef vector double v2df;
> +typedef vector long v2di;
> +typedef vector float v4sf;
> +typedef vector int v4si;
> +
> +#ifndef TYPE
> +#define TYPE ulong
> +#endif
> +
> +#ifndef ITYPE
> +#define ITYPE TYPE
> +#endif
> +
> +#ifndef OTYPE
> +#define OTYPE TYPE
> +#endif
> +
> +static TYPE a;
> +TYPE *p = &a;
> +
> +#if !defined(DO_ADD) && !defined(DO_VALUE) && !defined(DO_SET)
> +#define DO_ADD 1
> +#define DO_VALUE 1
> +#define DO_SET 1
> +#endif
> +
> +#if DO_ADD
> +void
> +add (TYPE b)
> +{
> + a += b;
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> +#if DO_VALUE
> +OTYPE
> +value (void)
> +{
> + return (OTYPE)a;
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> +#if DO_SET
> +void
> +set (ITYPE b)
> +{
> + a = (TYPE)b;
> +}
> +#endif
I didn't fine-tooth check the scan-assembler statements, but the bite-
size testcases seem reasonable. lgtm
Thanks,
-Will
