On 10/11/23 19:37, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
``` foo2: sext.w a6,a1 <-- this goes away beq a1,zero,.L4 li a5,0 li a0,0 .L3: addw a4,a2,a5 addw a5,a3,a5 addw a0,a4,a0 bltu a5,a6,.L3 ret .L4: li a0,0 ret ```...if your patch gets rid of that sign-extension above...diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/pr111466.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/pr111466.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..007792466a51 --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/pr111466.c @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +/* Simplified varaint of gcc.target/riscv/zba-adduw.c. */ + +/* { dg-do compile } */ +/* { dg-options "-march=rv64gc_zba_zbs -mabi=lp64" } */ +/* { dg-skip-if "" { *-*-* } { "-O0" } } */ + +int foo2(int unused, int n, unsigned y, unsigned delta){ + int s = 0; + unsigned int x = 0; + for (;x<n;x +=delta) + s += x+y; + return s; +} + +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "\msext\M" } } */...then why test for the presence of a sign-extension instruction in the test-case? IOW, shouldn't that be a scan-assember-not?
Yes indeed.
(What am I missing?)
Nothing deep really, just a snafu on my side. I'll fix it in v2. Thx, -Vineet
brgds, H-P PS. sorry I missed the Cauldron this year. Hope to see you all next year!
Looking fwd to. Thx, -Vineet
