> Am 12.01.2021 um 08:41 schrieb Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com>:
>
> On 11/01/2021 17.38, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> The current EXRL tests crash on real machines: we must not use r0 as a base
>> register for trt/trtr, otherwise the content gets ignored. Also, we must
>> not use r0 for exrl, otherwise it gets ignored.
>> Let's use the "a" constraint so we get a general purpose register != r0.
>> For op2, we can simply specify a memory operand directly via "Q" (Memory
>> reference without index register and with short displacement).
>> Fixes: ad8c851d2e77 ("target/s390x: add EX support for TRT and TRTR")
>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> tests/tcg/s390x/exrl-trt.c | 8 ++++----
>> tests/tcg/s390x/exrl-trtr.c | 8 ++++----
>> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>> diff --git a/tests/tcg/s390x/exrl-trt.c b/tests/tcg/s390x/exrl-trt.c
>> index 3c5323aecb..16711a3181 100644
>> --- a/tests/tcg/s390x/exrl-trt.c
>> +++ b/tests/tcg/s390x/exrl-trt.c
>> @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ int main(void)
>> }
>> asm volatile(
>> " j 2f\n"
>> - "1: trt 0(1,%[op1]),0(%[op2])\n"
>> + "1: trt 0(1,%[op1]),%[op2]\n"
>> "2: exrl %[op1_len],1b\n"
>> " lgr %[r1],%%r1\n"
>> " lgr %[r2],%%r2\n"
>> @@ -27,9 +27,9 @@ int main(void)
>> : [r1] "+r" (r1),
>> [r2] "+r" (r2),
>> [cc] "=r" (cc)
>> - : [op1] "r" (&op1),
>> - [op1_len] "r" (5),
>> - [op2] "r" (&op2)
>> + : [op1] "a" (&op1),
>> + [op1_len] "a" (5),
>
> I think op1_len could still stay with "r" instead of "a" ... OTOH "a" also
> does not hurt here, so:
>
No, otherwise exrl ignores the register content if it ends up being r0.
Thanks!
> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com>
