On 3/30/17 12:15 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>>> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "drintn\\." } } */
>>>> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "drintnq\\." } } */
>>>> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "dctfix" } } */
>>>> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "dctfixq" } } */
>>>
>>> If there is no "dctfix" there surely is no "dctfixq" either (i.e., your
>>> regexen aren't very tight).
>>
>> Ahh, true. I suppose I could also just look for "drintn" too,
>> since that would catch both drintn. and drintnq., ok with that
>> change?
>
> Please add a comment what instructions each regex is supposed to match, then?
> Okay with such a change.
Actually, the following is probably better. I'll go with this unless
you object.
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "drintn\[q\]\." } } */
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "dctfix\[q\]" } } */
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "dcffix\[q\]" } } */
Peter
