On 18 January 2015 at 21:22, Andrew Pinski <pins...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Christophe Lyon
> <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Yes and now you just have to revert the revert of my patch to fix those.
>
Thanks for the clarification/confirmation, I thought I had seen
something like that but I was confused.
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Christophe.
