On Thu, Oct 3, 2024 at 4:41 PM Maciej W. Rozycki <ma...@orcam.me.uk> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 3 Oct 2024, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> > We can remove a couple of XFAILs in the rv32 space as it's behaving much
> > more
> > like rv64 at this point.
>
> I'm glad to see them gone. I have a couple of concerns with your change
> though.
>
> Given:
>
> * gcc.target/riscv/cset-sext.c: Similarly. No longer allow
> "not" in asm output.
>
> and:
>
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "\\sneg\\s" } } */
>
> I think the assembly snippet in the comment has to be updated accordingly.
> Also I guess s/not/neg/ for the ChangeLog entry.
>
> More importantly may I ask you to review the second paragraph of commit
> 6c3365e715fa ("RISC-V: Also handle sign extension in branch costing") to
> see if any of the other issues referred there have also been now sorted
> and mention that in the change description, possibly with a commit hash
> reference to Andrew P's recent improvements? And in particular can the
> branch costs requested be lowered for gcc.target/riscv/cset-sext.c now?
I suspect it is r15-3992-g698e0ec89bc096 . If so then if you change
the function in cset-sext.c to be:
```
_Bool
foo (long a, long b)
{
if (!b)
return 0;
else if (a)
return 1;
else
return 0;
}
```
You get the same code in GCC 14 as you would get with the unmodified
testcase now (13 didn't have -mmovcc).
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
> > Tested in my tester on rv64gcv and rv32gc. Will wait for the pre-commit
> > testers to render their verdict before moving forward.
>
> Can you please address my concerns too before moving forward?
>
> Maciej
