Hi Robin, > In general I'm fine with this small change of course, I just wonder if > the testcase is not brittle anyway. From what I can tell the respective > change is independent of the actual number of registers so maybe it's enough > to > not compare the fully body but just make sure the addis are not present? > That way, the test could also work for -march=rv64 (which saves one > register less anyway regardless of mcmodel - but the change still helps) > or maybe even with instruction scheduling. Would you mind checking this > still?
I think you are rigth, I would like to remove the `-mcmodel=medany` option and relax assert from `__riscv_save/restore_4` to `__riscv_save/restore_(3|4)` to let this testcase not brittle on any -mcmodel. Then I'm also going to add another testcase (I dont known how to run -march=rv32imafc and -march=rv64imafc on the same testcase) that uses -march=rv64imafc. Removing scheduling option will result in a change in the order of the assert assembly, and I don't feel like removing it because the order may be different for different microarchitectures. Best, Lehua V2 patch: gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: * gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore.c: Moved to... * gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore_2.c: ...here. * gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore_1.c: New test. --- .../gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore_1.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++ ..._save_restore.c => stack_save_restore_2.c} | 6 +-- 2 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore_1.c rename gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/{stack_save_restore.c => stack_save_restore_2.c} (90%) diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore_1.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore_1.c new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..255ce5f40c9 --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore_1.c @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ +/* { dg-do compile } */ +/* { dg-options "-march=rv64imafc -mabi=lp64f -msave-restore -O2 -fno-schedule-insns -fno-schedule-insns2 -fno-unroll-loops -fno-peel-loops -fno-lto" } */ +/* { dg-final { check-function-bodies "**" "" } } */ + +char my_getchar(); +float getf(); + +/* +** bar: +** call t0,__riscv_save_(3|4) +** addi sp,sp,-2032 +** ... +** li t0,-12288 +** add sp,sp,t0 +** ... +** li t0,12288 +** add sp,sp,t0 +** ... +** addi sp,sp,2032 +** tail __riscv_restore_(3|4) +*/ +int bar() +{ + float volatile farray[3568]; + + float sum = 0; + float f1 = getf(); + float f2 = getf(); + float f3 = getf(); + float f4 = getf(); + + for (int i = 0; i < 3568; i++) + { + farray[i] = my_getchar() * 1.2; + sum += farray[i]; + } + + return sum + f1 + f2 + f3 + f4; +} + diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore_2.c similarity index 90% rename from gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore.c rename to gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore_2.c index 522e706cfbf..4ce5e0118a4 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore_2.c @@ -6,8 +6,8 @@ char my_getchar(); float getf(); /* -**bar: -** call t0,__riscv_save_4 +** bar: +** call t0,__riscv_save_(3|4) ** addi sp,sp,-2032 ** ... ** li t0,-12288 @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ float getf(); ** add sp,sp,t0 ** ... ** addi sp,sp,2032 -** tail __riscv_restore_4 +** tail __riscv_restore_(3|4) */ int bar() { -- 2.36.3