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" } } */
