On 7/12/25 8:26 AM, pan2...@intel.com wrote:
From: Pan Li <pan2...@intel.com>
Per previous discuss with Jeff, we don't do complicated
asm check like scalar saturation alu. It is somehow
not easy to maintain, as well as fragile. Thus, we
remove these function-body check, and introduce the
jmp label asm check instead.The code-gen of SAT_*
will never have a jmp, and the other run test will
make sure the correctness of SAT_* code-gen.
The below test suites are passed for this patch series.
* The rv64gcv fully regression test.
The below failed test cases are resolved:
FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/sat/sat_s_add_imm-2-i8.c -Oz
check-function-bodies sat_s_add_imm_int8_t_fmt_2_1
FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/sat/sat_s_add_imm-2-i8.c -Os
check-function-bodies sat_s_add_imm_int8_t_fmt_2_1
FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/sat/sat_s_add_imm-2-i8.c -O3
check-function-bodies sat_s_add_imm_int8_t_fmt_2_1
FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/sat/sat_s_add_imm-2-i8.c -Ofast
check-function-bodies sat_s_add_imm_int8_t_fmt_2_1
FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/sat/sat_s_add_imm-2-i8.c -O2
check-function-bodies sat_s_add_imm_int8_t_fmt_2_1
Just to make sure I understand. We're switching to a check that we've
got a branchless sequence, right? That seems like a good idea,
particularly when mated with the pre-existing test that we've got the
appropriate SAT IFN in the .optimized dump.
Thanks for taking care of this. While the changes aren't terribly
complex, there's a *lot* of them.
Jeff
