On 2011/7/18 04:46 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > The patch to arm.c is ok, but the change to the test is not as it will cause > problems with multilib testing. A better fix is to skip the test if the > target is thumb1. > > The other test needs a similar check as it seems to expect a movs instruction. > > R.
Yes it seems more logical to skip for thumb1, at least for the movs one. For the uxtb test, I think probably using "dg-require-effective-target arm_thumb2_ok" would be more suitable wrt multilib testing. Updated patch for the testcase parts, is this okay? Thanks, Chung-Lin
Index: combine-movs.c =================================================================== --- combine-movs.c (revision 0) +++ combine-movs.c (revision 0) @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ +/* { dg-do compile } */ +/* { dg-skip-if "" { arm_thumb1 } } */ +/* { dg-options "-O" } */ + +void foo (unsigned long r[], unsigned int d) +{ + int i, n = d / 32; + for (i = 0; i < n; ++i) + r[i] = 0; +} + +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movs\tr\[0-9\]" } } */ Index: unsigned-extend-2.c =================================================================== --- unsigned-extend-2.c (revision 0) +++ unsigned-extend-2.c (revision 0) @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ +/* { dg-do compile } */ +/* { dg-require-effective-target arm_thumb2_ok } */ +/* { dg-options "-O" } */ + +unsigned short foo (unsigned short x) +{ + unsigned char i = 0; + for (i = 0; i < 8; i++) + { + x >>= 1; + x &= 0x7fff; + } + return x; +} + +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "ands" } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "uxtb" } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "cmp" } } */