On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 04:22:06PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/ppc-ne0-1.c
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/ppc-ne0-1.c
>
> > -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "addic" 4 } } */
> > -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "subfe" 1 } } */
> > -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "addze" 3 } } */
> > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\maddic\M} 4 { target { !
> > has_arch_pwr10 } } } } */
> > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\msubfe\M} 1 { target { !
> > has_arch_pwr10 } } } } */
> > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\maddic\M} 3 { target {
> > has_arch_pwr10 } } } } */
> > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not {\msubfe\M} { target {
> > has_arch_pwr10 } } } } */
> > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\msetbcr\M} 1 { target {
> > has_arch_pwr10 } } } } */
> > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\maddze\M} 3 } } */
>
> It may be easier to split the patch into two, where one part can get the
> setbcr (the first, simplest function), and the rest stays the same.
I really don't understand this comment. I don't see how you could split the
patch in two, as the function that generates the setbcr (ne0) for power10 would
generate addic/subfe instead of the setbcr on earlier power systems. Those
instruction counts have to be changed for the other functions. So it doesn't
make sense to split the patch to me.
--
Michael Meissner, IBM
IBM, M/S 2506R, 550 King Street, Littleton, MA 01460-6245, USA
email: meiss...@linux.ibm.com, phone: +1 (978) 899-4797
