> From: Vineet Gupta <vine...@rivosinc.com>
> Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 14:43:41 -0700
Please forgive my daftness, but...
> ```
> foo2:
> sext.w a6,a1 <-- this goes away
> beq a1,zero,.L4
> li a5,0
> li a0,0
> .L3:
> addw a4,a2,a5
> addw a5,a3,a5
> addw a0,a4,a0
> bltu a5,a6,.L3
> ret
> .L4:
> li a0,0
> ret
> ```
...if your patch gets rid of that sign-extension above...
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/pr111466.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/pr111466.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..007792466a51
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/pr111466.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
> +/* Simplified varaint of gcc.target/riscv/zba-adduw.c. */
> +
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-options "-march=rv64gc_zba_zbs -mabi=lp64" } */
> +/* { dg-skip-if "" { *-*-* } { "-O0" } } */
> +
> +int foo2(int unused, int n, unsigned y, unsigned delta){
> + int s = 0;
> + unsigned int x = 0;
> + for (;x<n;x +=delta)
> + s += x+y;
> + return s;
> +}
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "\msext\M" } } */
...then why test for the presence of a sign-extension
instruction in the test-case?
IOW, shouldn't that be a scan-assember-not?
(What am I missing?)
brgds, H-P
PS. sorry I missed the Cauldron this year. Hope to see you all next year!
