Hi Andrew,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
> ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Bennett
> Sent: Friday, July 03, 2015 7:50 PM
> Subject: [PATCH] MIPS: fix failing branch range checks for micromips
>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/mips/branch-10.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/mips/branch-10.c
> index e2b1b5f..00569b0 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/mips/branch-10.c
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/mips/branch-10.c
> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> -/* { dg-options "-mshared -mabi=n32" } */
> +/* { dg-options "-mshared -mabi=n32 -mno-micromips" } */
> /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "(\\\$28|%gp_rel|%got)" } } */
> /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "\tjr\t\\\$1\n" } } */
>
Like the other patch, the -mno-micromips should be removed from dg-options and
NOCOMPRESS used in place of NOMIPS16.
This comment applies to all of the branch-*.c tests.
>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/mips/branch-helper.h
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/mips/branch-helper.h
> index 85399be..bc4a31f 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/mips/branch-helper.h
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/mips/branch-helper.h
> @@ -33,5 +33,23 @@
> D2 ("nop") "\n\t" \
> D1 ("nop"))
>
> +/* Emit something that is 0xfffc bytes long, which is the largest
> + permissible range for micromips forward branches when branches
s/micromips/microMIPS/
> + have delay slots. */
> +#define OCCUPY_0xfffc \
> + asm (D13 ("nop32") "\n\t" \
> + D12 ("nop32") "\n\t" \
> + D11 ("nop32") "\n\t" \
> + D10 ("nop32") "\n\t" \
> + D9 ("nop32") "\n\t" \
> + D8 ("nop32") "\n\t" \
> + D7 ("nop32") "\n\t" \
> + D6 ("nop32") "\n\t" \
> + D5 ("nop32") "\n\t" \
> + D4 ("nop32") "\n\t" \
> + D3 ("nop32") "\n\t" \
> + D2 ("nop32") "\n\t" \
> + D1 ("nop32") "\n\t" \
> + D0 ("nop32"))
> /* Likewise emit something that is 0x1fffc bytes long. */ #define
> OCCUPY_0x1fffc do { asm ("nop"); OCCUPY_0x1fff8; } while (0)
diff --git
> a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/mips/branch-umips-10.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/mips/branch-umips-10.c
I see that you are naming these tests after the original branch-<number> tests
that they were derived from.
I think it would be better to keep all of the microMIPS tests named umips-???.
I don't think preserving the original number is important.
Thanks,
Catherine
