| Message ID | 52CFC98B.3090507@arm.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
> This patch will resolve testsuite/gcc.dg/pr44194-1.c failure observed in > aarch64 target by refining the second scan-rtl-dump-not pattern. > > For aarch64 target, the following barrier is generated which will > exactly match the current pattern > "insn \[^\n\]*set \\(mem". This is undesired. By adjusting the pattern, > this scenario is excluded. > > (insn 29 28 30 (set (mem:BLK (scratch) [0 A8]) > (unspec:BLK [ > (reg/f:DI 31 sp) > (reg/f:DI 29 x29) > ] UNSPEC_PRLG_STK)) pr44194-1.c:10 704 {stack_tie} > (nil)) Please use "scratch" instead of "stack_tie" as marker, it's more general.
Hi Eric, Thank you for your suggestion! I have made the adjustment and test it. Please check the new attachment. Regards, Renlin Li On 10/01/14 10:42, Eric Botcazou wrote: >> This patch will resolve testsuite/gcc.dg/pr44194-1.c failure observed in >> aarch64 target by refining the second scan-rtl-dump-not pattern. >> >> For aarch64 target, the following barrier is generated which will >> exactly match the current pattern >> "insn \[^\n\]*set \\(mem". This is undesired. By adjusting the pattern, >> this scenario is excluded. >> >> (insn 29 28 30 (set (mem:BLK (scratch) [0 A8]) >> (unspec:BLK [ >> (reg/f:DI 31 sp) >> (reg/f:DI 29 x29) >> ] UNSPEC_PRLG_STK)) pr44194-1.c:10 704 {stack_tie} >> (nil)) > Please use "scratch" instead of "stack_tie" as marker, it's more general. >
On 10/01/14 11:28, Renlin Li wrote: > Hi Eric, > > Thank you for your suggestion! > I have made the adjustment and test it. Please check the new attachment. > > Regards, > Renlin Li > > On 10/01/14 10:42, Eric Botcazou wrote: >>> This patch will resolve testsuite/gcc.dg/pr44194-1.c failure >>> observed in >>> aarch64 target by refining the second scan-rtl-dump-not pattern. >>> >>> For aarch64 target, the following barrier is generated which will >>> exactly match the current pattern >>> "insn \[^\n\]*set \\(mem". This is undesired. By adjusting the pattern, >>> this scenario is excluded. >>> >>> (insn 29 28 30 (set (mem:BLK (scratch) [0 A8]) >>> (unspec:BLK [ >>> (reg/f:DI 31 sp) >>> (reg/f:DI 29 x29) >>> ] UNSPEC_PRLG_STK)) pr44194-1.c:10 704 {stack_tie} >>> (nil)) >> Please use "scratch" instead of "stack_tie" as marker, it's more >> general. >> > Hi, Any comments? Kind regards, Renlin Li
> I have made the adjustment and test it. Please check the new attachment.
Thanks, applied on the mainline as obvious.
Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com> writes: >> I have made the adjustment and test it. Please check the new attachment. > > Thanks, applied on the mainline as obvious. It looks like the committed version removed the space after "insn". Was that intentional? It now triggers on MIPS because of the frame-related (insn/f) prologue instruction that stores the link register. The posted version works for me FWIW. And I guess this shows that it'd be worth having a comment saying _why_ the space is needed. :-) Thanks, Richard
> It looks like the committed version removed the space after "insn". > Was that intentional? It now triggers on MIPS because of the frame-related > (insn/f) prologue instruction that stores the link register. The posted > version works for me FWIW. I found out that it didn't fail with the space on x86 (hence false negative) because of the TI marker added by some RTL pass. Feel free to adjust back.
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr44194-1.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr44194-1.c index 0182f75..8899500 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr44194-1.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr44194-1.c @@ -15,5 +15,5 @@ void func() { /* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump "global deletions = (2|3)" "dse1" } } */ /* { dg-final { cleanup-rtl-dump "dse1" } } */ -/* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump-not "insn \[^\n\]*set \\(mem" "final" } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump-not "insn \[^\n\]*set \\(mem(?!.*?stack_tie)" "final" } } */ /* { dg-final { cleanup-rtl-dump "final" } } */
Hi all, This patch will resolve testsuite/gcc.dg/pr44194-1.c failure observed in aarch64 target by refining the second scan-rtl-dump-not pattern. For aarch64 target, the following barrier is generated which will exactly match the current pattern "insn \[^\n\]*set \\(mem". This is undesired. By adjusting the pattern, this scenario is excluded. (insn 29 28 30 (set (mem:BLK (scratch) [0 A8]) (unspec:BLK [ (reg/f:DI 31 sp) (reg/f:DI 29 x29) ] UNSPEC_PRLG_STK)) pr44194-1.c:10 704 {stack_tie} (nil)) Okay for trunk? Regards, Renlin Li