Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Testcase fix for __ATOMIC_CONSUME

2015-02-18 Thread Alex Velenko
On 12/02/15 18:38, Mike Stump wrote: On Feb 11, 2015, at 12:16 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote: On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 09:10 -0800, Mike Stump wrote: On Feb 9, 2015, at 7:11 AM, Alex Velenko wrote: The following patch makes atomic-op-consume.c XFAIL Is this patch ok? Ok. I’d shorten the comment

Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Testcase fix for __ATOMIC_CONSUME

2015-02-12 Thread Mike Stump
On Feb 11, 2015, at 12:16 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote: > On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 09:10 -0800, Mike Stump wrote: >> On Feb 9, 2015, at 7:11 AM, Alex Velenko wrote: >>> The following patch makes atomic-op-consume.c XFAIL >>> >>> Is this patch ok? >> >> Ok. >> >> I’d shorten the comment above the xfai

Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Testcase fix for __ATOMIC_CONSUME

2015-02-11 Thread Torvald Riegel
On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 09:10 -0800, Mike Stump wrote: > On Feb 9, 2015, at 7:11 AM, Alex Velenko wrote: > > The following patch makes atomic-op-consume.c XFAIL > > > > Is this patch ok? > > Ok. > > I’d shorten the comment above the xfail to be exceedingly short: > > /* PR59448 consume not imp

Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Testcase fix for __ATOMIC_CONSUME

2015-02-09 Thread Mike Stump
On Feb 9, 2015, at 7:11 AM, Alex Velenko wrote: > The following patch makes atomic-op-consume.c XFAIL > > Is this patch ok? Ok. I’d shorten the comment above the xfail to be exceedingly short: /* PR59448 consume not implemented yet */ The reason is the brain can process this about 8x faster

Re: Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Testcase fix for __ATOMIC_CONSUME

2015-02-09 Thread Alex Velenko
On 28/01/15 18:50, Mike Stump wrote: On Jan 28, 2015, at 9:51 AM, Marcus Shawcroft wrote: Going forward we can [ … ] xfail the test case pending a proper solution to 59448 ? Mike do you prefer one of the other two approaches ? I’d xfail the test case and mark with the fix consume PR. If

Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Testcase fix for __ATOMIC_CONSUME

2015-01-28 Thread Mike Stump
On Jan 28, 2015, at 9:51 AM, Marcus Shawcroft wrote: > Going forward we can [ … ] xfail the test case pending a proper solution to > 59448 ? > Mike do you prefer one of the other two approaches ? I’d xfail the test case and mark with the fix consume PR. If we don’t have an unambiguous, fix co

Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Testcase fix for __ATOMIC_CONSUME

2015-01-28 Thread James Greenhalgh
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 05:51:27PM +, Marcus Shawcroft wrote: > On 28 January 2015 at 17:41, Mike Stump wrote: > > On Jan 27, 2015, at 8:24 AM, Alex Velenko wrote: > >> This patch fixes aarch64/atomic-op-consume.c test to expect safe "LDAXR" > >> instruction to be generated when __ATOMIC_CONS

Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Testcase fix for __ATOMIC_CONSUME

2015-01-28 Thread Marcus Shawcroft
On 28 January 2015 at 17:41, Mike Stump wrote: > On Jan 27, 2015, at 8:24 AM, Alex Velenko wrote: >> This patch fixes aarch64/atomic-op-consume.c test to expect safe "LDAXR" >> instruction to be generated when __ATOMIC_CONSUME semantics is requested. > > Did you see: > > /* Workaround for Bugzi

Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Testcase fix for __ATOMIC_CONSUME

2015-01-28 Thread Mike Stump
On Jan 27, 2015, at 8:24 AM, Alex Velenko wrote: > This patch fixes aarch64/atomic-op-consume.c test to expect safe "LDAXR" > instruction to be generated when __ATOMIC_CONSUME semantics is requested. Did you see: /* Workaround for Bugzilla 59448. GCC doesn't track consume properly, so

Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Testcase fix for __ATOMIC_CONSUME

2015-01-21 Thread James Greenhalgh
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 05:39:12PM +, Alex Velenko wrote: > Hi, > Is the following patch ok? > regards, > Alex Hi Alex, Some comments on your submission inline below. > This patch fixes aarch64/atomic-op-consume.c test to expect safe assembly to > be > generated when __ATOMIC_CONSUME semant