[PATCH, PR43920, 2/9] ARM specific part - test case
A testcase for the code in arm-size-branch_cost.patch.
Thanks,
- Tom
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr43920-1.c
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr43920-1.c (revision 0)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr43920-1.c (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-march=armv7-a -mthumb -Os" } */
+
+int
+f (int start, int end, int *start_)
+{
+ if (start == -1 || end == -1)
+return -1;
+
+ if (end - start)
+return -1;
+
+ *start_ = start;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "\torr" 0 } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "\tit\t" 0 } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "\tbeq" } } */
Re: [PATCH, PR43920, 2/9] ARM specific part - test case
Reposting, with ChangeLog.
2011-04-01 Tom de Vries
PR target/43920
* gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr43920-1.c: New test.
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr43920-1.c
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr43920-1.c (revision 0)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr43920-1.c (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-march=armv7-a -mthumb -Os" } */
+
+int
+f (int start, int end, int *start_)
+{
+ if (start == -1 || end == -1)
+return -1;
+
+ if (end - start)
+return -1;
+
+ *start_ = start;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "\torr" 0 } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "\tit\t" 0 } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "\tbeq" } } */
Re: [PATCH, PR43920, 2/9] ARM specific part - test case
On 04/01/2011 05:01 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 04:56:10PM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> Reposting, with ChangeLog.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ has its own ChangeLog, so the ChangeLog entry
> should say just
> * gcc.target/arm/pr43920-2.c: New test.
>
> Jakub
Fixed ChangeLog.
Thanks,
- Tom
2011-04-01 Tom de Vries
PR target/43920
* gcc.target/arm/pr43920-1.c: New test.
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr43920-1.c
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr43920-1.c (revision 0)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr43920-1.c (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-march=armv7-a -mthumb -Os" } */
+
+int
+f (int start, int end, int *start_)
+{
+ if (start == -1 || end == -1)
+return -1;
+
+ if (end - start)
+return -1;
+
+ *start_ = start;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "\torr" 0 } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "\tit\t" 0 } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "\tbeq" } } */
Re: [PATCH, PR43920, 2/9] ARM specific part - test case
On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 16:47 +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
> Reposting, with ChangeLog.
+/* { dg-options "-march=armv7-a -mthumb -Os" } */
No, use dg-require-effective-target. The above doesn't work properly
with multilib testing.
R.
Re: [PATCH, PR43920, 2/9] ARM specific part - test case
On 04/01/2011 05:34 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 16:47 +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> Reposting, with ChangeLog.
>
> +/* { dg-options "-march=armv7-a -mthumb -Os" } */
>
> No, use dg-require-effective-target. The above doesn't work properly
> with multilib testing.
>
Changed it into:
+/* { dg-options "-mthumb -Os" } */
+/* { dg-require-effective-target arm_thumb2_ok } */
Thanks,
- Tom
2011-04-01 Tom de Vries
PR target/43920
* gcc.target/arm/pr43920-1.c: New test.
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr43920-1.c
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr43920-1.c (revision 0)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr43920-1.c (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-mthumb -Os" } */
+/* { dg-require-effective-target arm_thumb2_ok } */
+
+int
+f (int start, int end, int *start_)
+{
+ if (start == -1 || end == -1)
+return -1;
+
+ if (end - start)
+return -1;
+
+ *start_ = start;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "\torr" 0 } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "\tit\t" 0 } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "\tbeq" } } */
Re: [PATCH, PR43920, 2/9] ARM specific part - test case
Hi Richard,
On 04/01/2011 06:10 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 04/01/2011 05:34 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 16:47 +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>> Reposting, with ChangeLog.
>>
>> +/* { dg-options "-march=armv7-a -mthumb -Os" } */
>>
>> No, use dg-require-effective-target. The above doesn't work properly
>> with multilib testing.
>>
>
> Changed it into:
>
> +/* { dg-options "-mthumb -Os" } */
> +/* { dg-require-effective-target arm_thumb2_ok } */
>
Is this updated version (
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg00058.html ) ok for trunk?
Thanks,
- Tom
Re: [PATCH, PR43920, 2/9] ARM specific part - test case
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 12:42 +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> On 04/01/2011 06:10 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> > On 04/01/2011 05:34 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 16:47 +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
> >>> Reposting, with ChangeLog.
> >>
> >> +/* { dg-options "-march=armv7-a -mthumb -Os" } */
> >>
> >> No, use dg-require-effective-target. The above doesn't work properly
> >> with multilib testing.
> >>
> >
> > Changed it into:
> >
> > +/* { dg-options "-mthumb -Os" } */
> > +/* { dg-require-effective-target arm_thumb2_ok } */
> >
>
> Is this updated version (
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg00058.html ) ok for trunk?
>
Yes, thanks.
R.
Re: [PATCH, PR43920, 2/9] ARM specific part - test case
Is this updated version ( http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg00058.html ) ok for trunk? I think you accidentally applied the patch twice and committed it. Yeah unfortunately there is no equivalent of git clean -f -d in svn unless you write something up with svn status and some shell scripting foo... I've now fixed this up with http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2011-04/msg00224.html Ramana
Re: [PATCH, PR43920, 2/9] ARM specific part - test case
On 04/06/2011 12:48 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > >> Is this updated version ( >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg00058.html ) ok for trunk? > > I think you accidentally applied the patch twice and committed it. That is exactly what happened, according to my history: ... 1877 patch -p0 < ../patches/arm-size-branch_cost.test.patch 1878 patch -p0 < ../patches/arm-size-branch_cost.test.patch 1879 svn add gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr43920-1.c ... > Yeah > unfortunately there is no equivalent of git clean -f -d in svn unless > you write something up with svn status and some shell scripting foo... > > I've now fixed this up with > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2011-04/msg00224.html > Sorry about that, and thanks a lot! Thanks, - Tom
