On 16 January 2015 at 11:54, Marcus Shawcroft
<marcus.shawcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15 January 2015 at 18:18, Richard Henderson <r...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 12/15/2014 12:41 AM, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
>>> +(define_expand "cmp<mode>"
>>> + [(set (match_operand 0 "cc_register" "")
>>> + (match_operator:CC 1 "aarch64_comparison_operator"
>>> + [(match_operand:GPI 2 "register_operand" "")
>>> + (match_operand:GPI 3 "aarch64_plus_operand" "")]))]
>>> + ""
>>> + "
>>> + operands[1] = gen_rtx_fmt_ee (COMPARE, SELECT_CC_MODE (GET_CODE
>>> (operands[1]),
>>> + operands[2],
>>> + operands[3]),
>>> + operands[2], operands[3]);
>>> + "
>>> +)
>>
>> Use { } not "" for the C portion.
>>
>> Otherwise ok.
>
> Jiong... this is fine with me. /Marcus
Jiong,
I have noticed regressions on aarch64 after this patch:
See:
http://abe.tcwglab.linaro.org/logs/validations/cross-validation/gcc/trunk/219723/report-build-info.html
Passed now fails [PASS => FAIL]:
gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_1.c scan-assembler-times ldr\tx30,
\\[sp\\], [0-9]+ 3
gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_2.c scan-assembler-times ldp\tx19,
x30, \\[sp\\], [0-9]+ 2
gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_4.c scan-assembler-times ldp\tx19,
x30, \\[sp\\], [0-9]+ 2
gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_6.c scan-assembler-times ldr\tx30,
\\[sp\\], [0-9]+ 3
gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_7.c scan-assembler-times ldp\tx19,
x30, \\[sp\\], [0-9]+ 2
Is this expected?
Thanks,
Christophe.
