> 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!