| Message ID | 57602C9B-DD7A-43BB-BF5E-996C191932D8@sandoe.co.uk |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [X86] Revise fuse-caller-save-* to avoid XPASSes on PIC targets. | expand |
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 8:41 PM Iain Sandoe <iain@sandoe.co.uk> wrote: > > As Dominque noted in PR 64895, somewhere between revisions > r244915 and r244957 we see the fuse-caller-save* tests started to > XPASS on Darwin, which is a PIC target by default. > > The XFAILed parts of the tests never seem to be exercised on > Linux, and therefore the change would be unnoticed there. > > I have attached an analysis to the PR of the latest codegen from Linux > (which is identical to Darwin modulo the syntactic differences of PIC > accesses on the m32 platforms). > > AFAICT, from the thread in the PR, codegen now seems to be correct. > Even if the codegen is still not right, the test conditions need amendment > to reflect the current status quo (and the XFAILs are no longers needed). > > One test requires amendment for the PIC case on Linux, the remainer > of the changes are removals of the XFAILs. > > With the attached patch both Linux and Darwin show 17 / 18 passes m32 / m64. > > OK for trunk? These changes are OK as long as they don't regress HJ's x86_64 and i686 autotesters. Double points if they also fix -fpic failures. ;) > Relevant branch(es)? After a couple of days in mainline, if there are no autotester regressions. Otherwise your call. Thanks, Uros. > > Iain > > gcc/testsuite/ > > PR rtl-optimisation/64895 > * gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save-rec.c: Remove XFAILs. > * gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save.c: Likewise. > * gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save-xmm.c: Adjust tests for > PIC cases, remove XFAILs. > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save-rec.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save-rec.c > index 7abcf91..e8d4efb 100644 > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save-rec.c > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save-rec.c > @@ -18,14 +18,12 @@ foo (int y) > return y + bar (y); > } > > -/* For !nonpic && ia32 xfails, see PR64895. */ > - > /* Check that no registers are saved/restored. */ > -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "push" { xfail { { ! nonpic } && ia32 } } } } */ > -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "pop" { xfail { { ! nonpic } && ia32 } } } } */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "push" } } */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "pop" } } */ > > /* Check that addition uses dx. */ > -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "addl\t%\[re\]?dx, %\[re\]?ax" 1 { xfail { { ! nonpic } && ia32 } } } } */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "addl\t%\[re\]?dx, %\[re\]?ax" 1 } } */ > > /* Verify that bar is self-recursive. */ > /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "call\t_?bar" 2 } } */ > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save-xmm.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save-xmm.c > index c2d0544..02a5f5b 100644 > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save-xmm.c > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save-xmm.c > @@ -15,13 +15,18 @@ foo (v2df y) > return y + bar (y); > } > > -/* For !nonpic && ia32 xfails, see PR64895. */ > - > /* Check presence of all insns on xmm registers. These checks are expected to > pass with both -fipa-ra and -fno-ipa-ra. */ > -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "addpd\t\\.?LC0.*, %xmm0" 1 } } */ > -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "addpd\t%xmm1, %xmm0" 1 { xfail { { ! nonpic } && ia32 } } } } */ > -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "movapd\t%xmm0, %xmm1" 1 { xfail { { ! nonpic } && ia32 } } } } */ > + > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addpd\t\.?[Ll]C0.*, %xmm0} 1 { target { { ! ia32 } || nonpic } } } } */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {movapd\t\.?[Ll]C0.*, %xmm1} 1 { target { ia32 && { ! nonpic } } } } } */ > + > +/* We happen to get this for both cases, but in different positions. */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "addpd\t%xmm1, %xmm0" 1 } } */ > + > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "movapd\t%xmm0, %xmm1" 1 { target { { ! ia32 } || nonpic } } } } */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "movapd\t%xmm0, %xmm2" 1 { target { ia32 && { ! nonpic } } } } } */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "addpd\t%xmm2, %xmm0" 1 { target { ia32 && { ! nonpic } } } } } */ > > /* Check absence of save/restore of xmm1 register. */ > /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "movaps\t%xmm1, \\(%\[re\]?sp\\)" } } */ > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save.c > index 4b8e68d..c0e8bf4 100644 > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save.c > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save.c > @@ -16,11 +16,9 @@ foo (int y) > return y + bar (y); > } > > -/* For !nonpic && ia32 xfails, see PR64895. */ > - > /* Check that no registers are saved/restored. */ > -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "push" { xfail { { ! nonpic } && ia32 } } } } */ > -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "pop" { xfail { { ! nonpic } && ia32 } } } } */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "push" } } */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "pop" } } */ > > /* PR61605. If the first argument register and the return register differ, then > bar leaves the first argument register intact. That means in foo that the > @@ -31,4 +29,4 @@ foo (int y) > /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "movl" { target { ! ia32 } } } } */ > > /* Check that addition uses di (in case of no copy) or dx (in case of copy). */ > -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "addl\t%\[re\]?d\[ix\], %\[re\]?ax" 1 { xfail { { ! nonpic } && ia32 } } } } */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "addl\t%\[re\]?d\[ix\], %\[re\]?ax" 1 } } */ >
Hi Uros. > On 23 May 2019, at 07:23, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 8:41 PM Iain Sandoe <iain@sandoe.co.uk> wrote: >> >> As Dominque noted in PR 64895, somewhere between revisions >> r244915 and r244957 we see the fuse-caller-save* tests started to >> XPASS on Darwin, which is a PIC target by default. >> >> The XFAILed parts of the tests never seem to be exercised on >> Linux, and therefore the change would be unnoticed there. >> >> I have attached an analysis to the PR of the latest codegen from Linux >> (which is identical to Darwin modulo the syntactic differences of PIC >> accesses on the m32 platforms). >> >> AFAICT, from the thread in the PR, codegen now seems to be correct. >> Even if the codegen is still not right, the test conditions need amendment >> to reflect the current status quo (and the XFAILs are no longers needed). >> >> One test requires amendment for the PIC case on Linux, the remainer >> of the changes are removals of the XFAILs. >> >> With the attached patch both Linux and Darwin show 17 / 18 passes m32 / m64. >> >> OK for trunk? > > These changes are OK as long as they don't regress HJ's x86_64 and > i686 autotesters. Applied as r271544, will look out for such fails. > Double points if they also fix -fpic failures. ;) make check-gcc-c RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix/-fpic\{-m32,-m64\} i386.exp=fuse-caller-save*” Test run by iains on Thu May 23 07:20:03 2019 Native configuration is x86_64-pc-linux-gnu === gcc tests === Running target unix/-fpic/-m32 === gcc Summary for unix/-fpic/-m32 === # of expected passes 18 === gcc Summary for unix/-fpic/-m64 === # of expected passes 18 ( but, as noted above, these tests are not run ‘-fpic’ on Linux by default, although in this case a fail on Darwin would be a fair indication of problems ) thanks Iain >> Relevant branch(es)? > > After a couple of days in mainline, if there are no autotester > regressions. Otherwise your call. > > Thanks, > Uros. > >> >> Iain >> >> gcc/testsuite/ >> >> PR rtl-optimisation/64895 >> * gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save-rec.c: Remove XFAILs. >> * gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save.c: Likewise. >> * gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save-xmm.c: Adjust tests for >> PIC cases, remove XFAILs. >> >> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save-rec.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save-rec.c >> index 7abcf91..e8d4efb 100644 >> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save-rec.c >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save-rec.c >> @@ -18,14 +18,12 @@ foo (int y) >> return y + bar (y); >> } >> >> -/* For !nonpic && ia32 xfails, see PR64895. */ >> - >> /* Check that no registers are saved/restored. */ >> -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "push" { xfail { { ! nonpic } && ia32 } } } } */ >> -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "pop" { xfail { { ! nonpic } && ia32 } } } } */ >> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "push" } } */ >> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "pop" } } */ >> >> /* Check that addition uses dx. */ >> -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "addl\t%\[re\]?dx, %\[re\]?ax" 1 { xfail { { ! nonpic } && ia32 } } } } */ >> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "addl\t%\[re\]?dx, %\[re\]?ax" 1 } } */ >> >> /* Verify that bar is self-recursive. */ >> /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "call\t_?bar" 2 } } */ >> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save-xmm.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save-xmm.c >> index c2d0544..02a5f5b 100644 >> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save-xmm.c >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save-xmm.c >> @@ -15,13 +15,18 @@ foo (v2df y) >> return y + bar (y); >> } >> >> -/* For !nonpic && ia32 xfails, see PR64895. */ >> - >> /* Check presence of all insns on xmm registers. These checks are expected to >> pass with both -fipa-ra and -fno-ipa-ra. */ >> -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "addpd\t\\.?LC0.*, %xmm0" 1 } } */ >> -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "addpd\t%xmm1, %xmm0" 1 { xfail { { ! nonpic } && ia32 } } } } */ >> -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "movapd\t%xmm0, %xmm1" 1 { xfail { { ! nonpic } && ia32 } } } } */ >> + >> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addpd\t\.?[Ll]C0.*, %xmm0} 1 { target { { ! ia32 } || nonpic } } } } */ >> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {movapd\t\.?[Ll]C0.*, %xmm1} 1 { target { ia32 && { ! nonpic } } } } } */ >> + >> +/* We happen to get this for both cases, but in different positions. */ >> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "addpd\t%xmm1, %xmm0" 1 } } */ >> + >> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "movapd\t%xmm0, %xmm1" 1 { target { { ! ia32 } || nonpic } } } } */ >> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "movapd\t%xmm0, %xmm2" 1 { target { ia32 && { ! nonpic } } } } } */ >> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "addpd\t%xmm2, %xmm0" 1 { target { ia32 && { ! nonpic } } } } } */ >> >> /* Check absence of save/restore of xmm1 register. */ >> /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "movaps\t%xmm1, \\(%\[re\]?sp\\)" } } */ >> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save.c >> index 4b8e68d..c0e8bf4 100644 >> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save.c >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save.c >> @@ -16,11 +16,9 @@ foo (int y) >> return y + bar (y); >> } >> >> -/* For !nonpic && ia32 xfails, see PR64895. */ >> - >> /* Check that no registers are saved/restored. */ >> -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "push" { xfail { { ! nonpic } && ia32 } } } } */ >> -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "pop" { xfail { { ! nonpic } && ia32 } } } } */ >> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "push" } } */ >> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "pop" } } */ >> >> /* PR61605. If the first argument register and the return register differ, then >> bar leaves the first argument register intact. That means in foo that the >> @@ -31,4 +29,4 @@ foo (int y) >> /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "movl" { target { ! ia32 } } } } */ >> >> /* Check that addition uses di (in case of no copy) or dx (in case of copy). */ >> -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "addl\t%\[re\]?d\[ix\], %\[re\]?ax" 1 { xfail { { ! nonpic } && ia32 } } } } */ >> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "addl\t%\[re\]?d\[ix\], %\[re\]?ax" 1 } } */
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:25 AM Iain Sandoe <iain@sandoe.co.uk> wrote: > > These changes are OK as long as they don't regress HJ's x86_64 and > > i686 autotesters. > > Applied as r271544, will look out for such fails. > > > Double points if they also fix -fpic failures. ;) > > make check-gcc-c RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix/-fpic\{-m32,-m64\} i386.exp=fuse-caller-save*” > > Test run by iains on Thu May 23 07:20:03 2019 > Native configuration is x86_64-pc-linux-gnu > > === gcc tests === > > Running target unix/-fpic/-m32 > > === gcc Summary for unix/-fpic/-m32 === > > # of expected passes 18 > > === gcc Summary for unix/-fpic/-m64 === > > # of expected passes 18 > > ( but, as noted above, these tests are not run ‘-fpic’ on Linux by default, although in this case a fail on Darwin > would be a fair indication of problems ) There are periodic results for i686/-fpic [1], x32/-fpic [2] and x86_64/-fpic/{,-mcmodel=medium} [3] targets avaliable in gcc-testresults@ ML. I think we have quite good coverage of -fpic for x86 targets. BTW: HJ, for some reason -fpic/-mcmodel=large does not work in [3]. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2019-05/msg02599.html [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2019-05/msg02577.html [3] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2019-05/msg02571.html Uros.
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 6:09 AM Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:25 AM Iain Sandoe <iain@sandoe.co.uk> wrote: > > > > These changes are OK as long as they don't regress HJ's x86_64 and > > > i686 autotesters. > > > > Applied as r271544, will look out for such fails. > > > > > Double points if they also fix -fpic failures. ;) > > > > make check-gcc-c RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix/-fpic\{-m32,-m64\} i386.exp=fuse-caller-save*” > > > > Test run by iains on Thu May 23 07:20:03 2019 > > Native configuration is x86_64-pc-linux-gnu > > > > === gcc tests === > > > > Running target unix/-fpic/-m32 > > > > === gcc Summary for unix/-fpic/-m32 === > > > > # of expected passes 18 > > > > === gcc Summary for unix/-fpic/-m64 === > > > > # of expected passes 18 > > > > ( but, as noted above, these tests are not run ‘-fpic’ on Linux by default, although in this case a fail on Darwin > > would be a fair indication of problems ) > > There are periodic results for i686/-fpic [1], x32/-fpic [2] and > x86_64/-fpic/{,-mcmodel=medium} [3] targets avaliable in > gcc-testresults@ ML. I think we have quite good coverage of -fpic for > x86 targets. > > BTW: HJ, for some reason -fpic/-mcmodel=large does not work in [3]. > > [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2019-05/msg02599.html > [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2019-05/msg02577.html > [3] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2019-05/msg02571.html Since large PIC model has very different sequence to call function bar: movabsq $bar@GOTOFF, %rax addq %rdx, %rax call *%rax these tests will fail.
> On 23 May 2019, at 16:17, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 6:09 AM Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:25 AM Iain Sandoe <iain@sandoe.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>> These changes are OK as long as they don't regress HJ's x86_64 and >>>> i686 autotesters. >>> >>> Applied as r271544, will look out for such fails. >>> >>>> Double points if they also fix -fpic failures. ;) >>> >>> make check-gcc-c RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix/-fpic\{-m32,-m64\} i386.exp=fuse-caller-save*” >>> >>> Test run by iains on Thu May 23 07:20:03 2019 >>> Native configuration is x86_64-pc-linux-gnu >>> >>> === gcc tests === >>> >>> Running target unix/-fpic/-m32 >>> >>> === gcc Summary for unix/-fpic/-m32 === >>> >>> # of expected passes 18 >>> >>> === gcc Summary for unix/-fpic/-m64 === >>> >>> # of expected passes 18 >>> >>> ( but, as noted above, these tests are not run ‘-fpic’ on Linux by default, although in this case a fail on Darwin >>> would be a fair indication of problems ) >> >> There are periodic results for i686/-fpic [1], x32/-fpic [2] and >> x86_64/-fpic/{,-mcmodel=medium} [3] targets avaliable in >> gcc-testresults@ ML. I think we have quite good coverage of -fpic for >> x86 targets. >> >> BTW: HJ, for some reason -fpic/-mcmodel=large does not work in [3]. >> >> [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2019-05/msg02599.html >> [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2019-05/msg02577.html >> [3] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2019-05/msg02571.html > > Since large PIC model has very different sequence to call function bar: > > movabsq $bar@GOTOFF, %rax > addq %rdx, %rax > call *%rax So .. will they regress, or are they already failing there? Do you have a suggestion for what could be done to cover this case too? Iain
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 8:25 AM Iain Sandoe <iain@sandoe.co.uk> wrote: > > > > On 23 May 2019, at 16:17, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 6:09 AM Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:25 AM Iain Sandoe <iain@sandoe.co.uk> wrote: > >> > >>>> These changes are OK as long as they don't regress HJ's x86_64 and > >>>> i686 autotesters. > >>> > >>> Applied as r271544, will look out for such fails. > >>> > >>>> Double points if they also fix -fpic failures. ;) > >>> > >>> make check-gcc-c RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix/-fpic\{-m32,-m64\} i386.exp=fuse-caller-save*” > >>> > >>> Test run by iains on Thu May 23 07:20:03 2019 > >>> Native configuration is x86_64-pc-linux-gnu > >>> > >>> === gcc tests === > >>> > >>> Running target unix/-fpic/-m32 > >>> > >>> === gcc Summary for unix/-fpic/-m32 === > >>> > >>> # of expected passes 18 > >>> > >>> === gcc Summary for unix/-fpic/-m64 === > >>> > >>> # of expected passes 18 > >>> > >>> ( but, as noted above, these tests are not run ‘-fpic’ on Linux by default, although in this case a fail on Darwin > >>> would be a fair indication of problems ) > >> > >> There are periodic results for i686/-fpic [1], x32/-fpic [2] and > >> x86_64/-fpic/{,-mcmodel=medium} [3] targets avaliable in > >> gcc-testresults@ ML. I think we have quite good coverage of -fpic for > >> x86 targets. > >> > >> BTW: HJ, for some reason -fpic/-mcmodel=large does not work in [3]. > >> > >> [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2019-05/msg02599.html > >> [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2019-05/msg02577.html > >> [3] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2019-05/msg02571.html > > > > Since large PIC model has very different sequence to call function bar: > > > > movabsq $bar@GOTOFF, %rax > > addq %rdx, %rax > > call *%rax > > So .. will they regress, or are they already failing there? > Do you have a suggestion for what could be done to cover this case too? We should skip these tests for -mcmodel=large.
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save-rec.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save-rec.c index 7abcf91..e8d4efb 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save-rec.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save-rec.c @@ -18,14 +18,12 @@ foo (int y) return y + bar (y); } -/* For !nonpic && ia32 xfails, see PR64895. */ - /* Check that no registers are saved/restored. */ -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "push" { xfail { { ! nonpic } && ia32 } } } } */ -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "pop" { xfail { { ! nonpic } && ia32 } } } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "push" } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "pop" } } */ /* Check that addition uses dx. */ -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "addl\t%\[re\]?dx, %\[re\]?ax" 1 { xfail { { ! nonpic } && ia32 } } } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "addl\t%\[re\]?dx, %\[re\]?ax" 1 } } */ /* Verify that bar is self-recursive. */ /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "call\t_?bar" 2 } } */ diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save-xmm.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save-xmm.c index c2d0544..02a5f5b 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save-xmm.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save-xmm.c @@ -15,13 +15,18 @@ foo (v2df y) return y + bar (y); } -/* For !nonpic && ia32 xfails, see PR64895. */ - /* Check presence of all insns on xmm registers. These checks are expected to pass with both -fipa-ra and -fno-ipa-ra. */ -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "addpd\t\\.?LC0.*, %xmm0" 1 } } */ -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "addpd\t%xmm1, %xmm0" 1 { xfail { { ! nonpic } && ia32 } } } } */ -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "movapd\t%xmm0, %xmm1" 1 { xfail { { ! nonpic } && ia32 } } } } */ + +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addpd\t\.?[Ll]C0.*, %xmm0} 1 { target { { ! ia32 } || nonpic } } } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {movapd\t\.?[Ll]C0.*, %xmm1} 1 { target { ia32 && { ! nonpic } } } } } */ + +/* We happen to get this for both cases, but in different positions. */ +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "addpd\t%xmm1, %xmm0" 1 } } */ + +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "movapd\t%xmm0, %xmm1" 1 { target { { ! ia32 } || nonpic } } } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "movapd\t%xmm0, %xmm2" 1 { target { ia32 && { ! nonpic } } } } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "addpd\t%xmm2, %xmm0" 1 { target { ia32 && { ! nonpic } } } } } */ /* Check absence of save/restore of xmm1 register. */ /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "movaps\t%xmm1, \\(%\[re\]?sp\\)" } } */ diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save.c index 4b8e68d..c0e8bf4 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save.c @@ -16,11 +16,9 @@ foo (int y) return y + bar (y); } -/* For !nonpic && ia32 xfails, see PR64895. */ - /* Check that no registers are saved/restored. */ -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "push" { xfail { { ! nonpic } && ia32 } } } } */ -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "pop" { xfail { { ! nonpic } && ia32 } } } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "push" } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "pop" } } */ /* PR61605. If the first argument register and the return register differ, then bar leaves the first argument register intact. That means in foo that the @@ -31,4 +29,4 @@ foo (int y) /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "movl" { target { ! ia32 } } } } */ /* Check that addition uses di (in case of no copy) or dx (in case of copy). */ -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "addl\t%\[re\]?d\[ix\], %\[re\]?ax" 1 { xfail { { ! nonpic } && ia32 } } } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "addl\t%\[re\]?d\[ix\], %\[re\]?ax" 1 } } */