RE: [PATCH] fix testcase gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c

2020-08-27 Thread Qian, Jianhua 
Hi Iain

Iain Sandoe  wrote:
>Richard Sandiford  wrote:
>> "Qian, Jianhua"  writes:
>>> Hi Richard
>>> 
>>> I found that some instructions are using '#' before immediate value，
>>> and others are not. For example
>>> (define_insn "insv_imm"
>>>  [(set (zero_extract:GPI (match_operand:GPI 0 "register_operand" "+r")
>>> 
>>> 
>>> (match_operand:GPI 2 "const_int_operand" "n"))]  "UINTVAL 
>>> (operands[1]) < GET_MODE_BITSIZE (mode)
>>>   && UINTVAL (operands[1]) % 16 == 0"
>>>  "movk\\t%0, %X2, lsl %1"
>>>  [(set_attr "type" "mov_imm")]
>>> )
>>> 
>>> Are there any standards for this?
>> 
>> No, it's unfortunately inconsistent.  FWIW, if we were going to change 
>> this, personally I've a slight preference for having the “#”.
>
>Absence of the # makes assemblers based on the LLVM backend reject GCC’s 
>output, as such I’ve got a strong preference for adding it (I’ve got some 
>local patches for this already).
>e.g.
>https://github.com/iains/gcc-darwin-arm64/commit/526ffb6b34ddb848853016cd14a438683aa0e6de

That's good, we are of the same mind..

Regards
Qian

Re: [PATCH] fix testcase gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c

2020-08-27 Thread Iain Sandoe via Gcc-patches 

Richard Sandiford  wrote:


"Qian, Jianhua"  writes:

Hi Richard

I found that some instructions are using '#' before immediate value，
and others are not. For example
(define_insn "insv_imm"
 [(set (zero_extract:GPI (match_operand:GPI 0 "register_operand" "+r")
  (const_int 16)
  (match_operand:GPI 1 "const_int_operand" "n"))
(match_operand:GPI 2 "const_int_operand" "n"))]
 "UINTVAL (operands[1]) < GET_MODE_BITSIZE (mode)
  && UINTVAL (operands[1]) % 16 == 0"
 "movk\\t%0, %X2, lsl %1"
 [(set_attr "type" "mov_imm")]
)

Are there any standards for this?


No, it's unfortunately inconsistent.  FWIW, if we were going to change  
this,

personally I've a slight preference for having the “#”.


Absence of the # makes assemblers based on the LLVM backend reject GCC’s
output, as such I’ve got a strong preference for adding it (I’ve got some  
local

patches for this already).
e.g.
https://github.com/iains/gcc-darwin-arm64/commit/526ffb6b34ddb848853016cd14a438683aa0e6de

(hacking branch, please don’t shoot me, yet :) )

Iain

Re: [PATCH] fix testcase gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c

2020-08-27 Thread Richard Sandiford 
"Qian, Jianhua"  writes:
> Hi Richard
>
> I found that some instructions are using '#' before immediate value，
> and others are not. For example
> (define_insn "insv_imm"
>   [(set (zero_extract:GPI (match_operand:GPI 0 "register_operand" "+r")
> (const_int 16)
> (match_operand:GPI 1 "const_int_operand" "n"))
>   (match_operand:GPI 2 "const_int_operand" "n"))]
>   "UINTVAL (operands[1]) < GET_MODE_BITSIZE (mode)
>&& UINTVAL (operands[1]) % 16 == 0"
>   "movk\\t%0, %X2, lsl %1"
>   [(set_attr "type" "mov_imm")]
> )
>
> Are there any standards for this?

No, it's unfortunately inconsistent.  FWIW, if we were going to change this,
personally I've a slight preference for having the “#”.

Thanks,
Richard

>
> Regards
> Qian
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: Richard Sandiford  
> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 6:09 PM
> To: Qian, Jianhua/钱 建华 
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix testcase gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c
>
> Qian Jianhua  writes:
>> There are three failures in gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c.
>>  FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler bfi\tx[0-9]+, 
>> x[0-9]+, 0, 8
>>  FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler bfi\tx[0-9]+, 
>> x[0-9]+, 16, 5
>>  FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler movk\tx[0-9]+, 
>> 0x1d6b, lsl 32
>>
>> This patch fix the third failure which was missed "#" before immediate 
>> value in scan-assembler.
>
> Thanks, pushed to master.
>
> Richard
>
>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>
>>  * gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c: Add '#' in scan-assembler
>>
>> ---
>>  gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c 
>> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c
>> index 360a9892ad9..9efa22e649d 100644
>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c
>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c
>> @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ bfi2 (bitfield a)
>>  bitfield
>>  movk (bitfield a)
>>  {
>> -  /* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movk\tx\[0-9\]+, 0x1d6b, lsl 32" } 
>> } */
>> +  /* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movk\tx\[0-9\]+, #0x1d6b, lsl 32" } 
>> + } */
>>a.sixteen = 7531;
>>return a;
>>  }

RE: [PATCH] fix testcase gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c

2020-08-26 Thread Qian, Jianhua 
Hi Richard

I found that some instructions are using '#' before immediate value，
and others are not. For example
(define_insn "insv_imm"
  [(set (zero_extract:GPI (match_operand:GPI 0 "register_operand" "+r")
  (const_int 16)
  (match_operand:GPI 1 "const_int_operand" "n"))
(match_operand:GPI 2 "const_int_operand" "n"))]
  "UINTVAL (operands[1]) < GET_MODE_BITSIZE (mode)
   && UINTVAL (operands[1]) % 16 == 0"
  "movk\\t%0, %X2, lsl %1"
  [(set_attr "type" "mov_imm")]
)

Are there any standards for this?

Regards
Qian

-Original Message-
From: Richard Sandiford  
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 6:09 PM
To: Qian, Jianhua/钱 建华 
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix testcase gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c

Qian Jianhua  writes:
> There are three failures in gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c.
>  FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler bfi\tx[0-9]+, 
> x[0-9]+, 0, 8
>  FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler bfi\tx[0-9]+, 
> x[0-9]+, 16, 5
>  FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler movk\tx[0-9]+, 
> 0x1d6b, lsl 32
>
> This patch fix the third failure which was missed "#" before immediate 
> value in scan-assembler.

Thanks, pushed to master.

Richard

> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
>   * gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c: Add '#' in scan-assembler
>
> ---
>  gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c 
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c
> index 360a9892ad9..9efa22e649d 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c
> @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ bfi2 (bitfield a)
>  bitfield
>  movk (bitfield a)
>  {
> -  /* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movk\tx\[0-9\]+, 0x1d6b, lsl 32" } 
> } */
> +  /* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movk\tx\[0-9\]+, #0x1d6b, lsl 32" } 
> + } */
>a.sixteen = 7531;
>return a;
>  }

Re: [PATCH] fix testcase gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c

2020-08-26 Thread Richard Sandiford 
Qian Jianhua  writes:
> There are three failures in gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c.
>  FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler bfi\tx[0-9]+, x[0-9]+, 0, 8
>  FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler bfi\tx[0-9]+, x[0-9]+, 16, 5
>  FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler movk\tx[0-9]+, 0x1d6b, lsl 
> 32
>
> This patch fix the third failure which was missed "#" before immediate value
> in scan-assembler.

Thanks, pushed to master.

Richard

> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
>   * gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c: Add '#' in scan-assembler
>
> ---
>  gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c 
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c
> index 360a9892ad9..9efa22e649d 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c
> @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ bfi2 (bitfield a)
>  bitfield
>  movk (bitfield a)
>  {
> -  /* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movk\tx\[0-9\]+, 0x1d6b, lsl 32" } } */
> +  /* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movk\tx\[0-9\]+, #0x1d6b, lsl 32" } } */
>a.sixteen = 7531;
>return a;
>  }

[PATCH] fix testcase gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c

2020-08-26 Thread Qian Jianhua 
There are three failures in gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c.
 FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler bfi\tx[0-9]+, x[0-9]+, 0, 8
 FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler bfi\tx[0-9]+, x[0-9]+, 16, 5
 FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler movk\tx[0-9]+, 0x1d6b, lsl 32

This patch fix the third failure which was missed "#" before immediate value
in scan-assembler.


gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

* gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c: Add '#' in scan-assembler

---
 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c 
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c
index 360a9892ad9..9efa22e649d 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c
@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ bfi2 (bitfield a)
 bitfield
 movk (bitfield a)
 {
-  /* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movk\tx\[0-9\]+, 0x1d6b, lsl 32" } } */
+  /* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movk\tx\[0-9\]+, #0x1d6b, lsl 32" } } */
   a.sixteen = 7531;
   return a;
 }
-- 
2.18.1