On 10/3/24 5:58 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
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:
It is. But I would claim that patch is behaving properly. The test
shows that the patch regresses code quality on the RISC-V port. So the
goal is to improve the code we generate for the test. The exception to
that is the SFB test as it's unclear to me if the SFB sequence or the
new sequence is better.
Jeff
