On 25 January 2012, at 18:14, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2012, at 7:35 AM, Greta Yorsh wrote:
> > The test gcc.target/arm/di-longlong64-sync-withldrexd.c fails on
> > arm-none-eabi target, because gcc generates 48 LDREXD and 48 STREXD
> > instructions instead of the expected 46.
> >
> > FAIL: gcc.target/arm/di-longlong64-sync-withldrexd.c scan-assembler-
> times
> > tldrexd 46
> > FAIL: gcc.target/arm/di-longlong64-sync-withldrexd.c scan-assembler-
> times
> > tstrexd 46
>
> > The regression PASS->FAIL was introduced for target arm-none-eabi in
> the
> > first week of November 2011.
>
> Gosh, that seems like a long time to notice and adjust the testcase for
> a port that seems popular enough and has a nice representation around
> here. :-(
>
> > * gcc.target/arm/di-longlong64-sync-withldrexd.c:
>
> Please say slightly more than this.
I'm sorry. Here is the full entry:
* gcc.target/arm/di-longlong64-sync-withldrexd.c: Accept
new code generated for __sync_lock_release.
>
> Also, if you mean to ask for a review, please include an Ok? in there.
>
> I'll assume you meant to ask for a review.
> Ok. If you aren't
> absolutely sure about the codegen or have an doubts, please ping an arm
> person for review of the codegen.
Copying an arm person as well as the author of r181111, which introduced the
change in __sync_lock_release.
Thank you,
Greta
