From patchwork Fri Dec  9 19:45:48 2011
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: PR/50076 make c-c++-common/cxxbitfields-3.c work in Darwin
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 09:45:48 -0000
From: Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com>
X-Patchwork-Id: 130447
Message-Id: <4EE2656C.4080801@redhat.com>
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Cc: Dominique Dhumieres <dominiq@lps.ens.fr>, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org,
 developer@sandoe-acoustics.co.uk

On 12/09/11 13:19, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 08:17:04PM +0100, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
>>> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movl.*, (_?var|\\(%)" } } */
>>
>> It works for me too.
>
> Except that when matching just , (% it doesn't test almost anything.
> IMNSHO you should instead just test it { target !fpic } or similar.
> The _? in there is useful though.
>
> 	Jakub

I assume you mean it tests almost anything, in which case I thought the 
source tiny enough to not elicit any more loads that could be matched. 
But the test is annoyingly system dependent.

How about the patch below?

I used nonpic instead of "!fpic", as check_effective_target_fpic tests 
whether -fpic/-fPIC is supported in the driver, which will obviously 
return true even if we're not generating PIC code.  OTOH 
check_effective_target_nonpic tests whether we are generating PIC code 
by checking "#if __PIC__" which I believe is what we want.

Does this work for everyone?
* c-c++-common/cxxbitfields-3.c: Adjust regexp.


Index: c-c++-common/cxxbitfields-3.c
===================================================================
--- c-c++-common/cxxbitfields-3.c	(revision 182028)
+++ c-c++-common/cxxbitfields-3.c	(working copy)
@@ -18,4 +18,4 @@ void setit()
   var.j = 5;
 }
 
-/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movl.*, var" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movl.*, _?var" { target nonpic } } } */