On Sun, 7 Nov 2021, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Fri, 5 Nov 2021, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > > > > I was trying to chase another target I could use to regression-test this > > > with that does do scaled indexed addressing while still using old reload. > > > The i386 port would be a good candidate, but it has switched to LRA long > > > ago with no option to use old reload, and I think there would be little > > > point in adding one just for the sake of such verification. Do we have > > > any other port actually that could be affected by this change? > > > > That'd be cris-elf. > > Good to know, thanks! > > How do I run regression-testing with this target however? I can see QEMU > support upstream, even for user-mode Linux, which would be the easiest to > run (sadly toolchain support for CRIS/Linux was removed a while ago as was > the Linux kernel port; at one point I even considered getting myself a > CRIS development board as an alternative RISC platform that would Linux, > but concluded that it was too expensive for the features it offered), but > for a bare metal environment both a C library (newlib?) and then a > specific board support package is required.
Classic "bare-metal" whatever-elf testing should not be a stranger: sim and binutils support are in place in the official binutils+gdb git, as is newlib in that git and since many dejagnu releases a cris-sim.exp baseboard file. Just build and install binutils and sim for cris-elf (can probable be done at the same time/same builds from a binutils-and-gdb checkout, but separate builds are sometimes necessary) then build and test gcc from a combined-source-tree containing newlib and gcc. (Instructions for combining trees may be salvaged from the rottening https://gcc.gnu.org/simtest-howto.html but actually I roll tarballs and untar gcc over an (untarred) newlib tree.) I don't have a baseboard file for QEMU, sorry. > Or may I ask you to put this patch through testing with your environment? Where's the fun in that? :) (I thought you'd use 6cb68940dcf9 and do the same for VAX.) > > Your proposed patch reminded me of 6cb68940dcf9; giving reload a > > reload-specific insn_and_split pattern to play with, matching > > "mult" outside of a mem. I *guess* that's the CRIS-specific > > replacement to c605a8bf9270. > > Possibly, except for the missing reload bits making it incomplete. No, my thinking was that it wouldn't be needed. But, I didn't have a close look and maybe the problem isn't exactly the same or VAX has additional caveats. Also, that reload-pacifying pattern *is* a target-specific workaround for a reload bug, but a risk-free one for other targets. brgds, H-P PS. I'll fire up a round with that patch "tomorrow". Film at 11.
