On 22/12/2024 15:35, Torbjorn SVENSSON wrote:
>
>
> On 2024-12-19 12:48, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>> On 18/12/2024 16:24, Torbjörn SVENSSON wrote:
>>> Changes since v1:
>>>
>>> - Updated the commit message to reflect the changes (including the subject).
>>> - Replaced the POP/BEQ checks with chesk for {cmp,mov,orr,and}{eq,ne}.
>>> - Removed the size check
>>>
>>>
>>> Ok for trunk and releases/gcc-14?
>>> Should I also push this to releases/gcc-13 and releases/gcc-12 as this is a
>>> regression in r12-5301-g04520645038?
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Instead of checking that a certain transformation is not used by
>>> counting the number of return instructions and the number of BEQ
>>> instructions, check that none of CMP, MOV, ORR and AND instructions are
>>> suffixed with EQ or NE.
>>> Also removed size check as it's very unstable (depends on optimization
>>> in use).
>>>
>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>>
>>> PR testsuite/103298
>>> * gcc.target/arm/pr43920-2.c: Change to assembler pattern
>>> "(cmp|mov|orr|and)(eq|ne)" for the check. Remove size check.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Torbjörn SVENSSON <torbjorn.svens...@foss.st.com>
>>
>> OK
>
> Pushed as r15-6416-g9e1063ca1c8 and r14.2.0-584-ge79105ad8c0.
> Should I also push it to releases/gcc-12 and releases/gcc-13? Or can the
> bugzilla be closed regardless (regression in gcc12)?
I'm not convinced it's worth the time to validate the patch on those compilers.
It's just a testism.
R.
