From patchwork Mon Oct 22 03:00:08 2012 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Bin Cheng X-Patchwork-Id: 193072 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 10DC62C008C for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:05:53 +1100 (EST) Comment: DKIM? See http://www.dkim.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; x=1351479955; h=Comment: DomainKey-Signature:Received:Received:Received:Received:Received: From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Mailing-List:Precedence:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive: List-Post:List-Help:Sender:Delivered-To; bh=Hn6d7JSyv1Q4Bv76TW73 WmFoYJs=; b=irs7ikY2JnBcMHGhed10f5FiZM8Moju6E4UQwgjUsJgeJfTh7fyf GcxuGk95HoeV8Mo8PZDqFbw9HLpCwJPCChtkned9PlbhE8hhpqSJJYrPiA5oqvUY 2drinWfxbopCPUrkdd76CTAOrYqo2IBknF0h3XiZNuodrXRMO+4SFUA= Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gcc.gnu.org; h=Received:Received:X-SWARE-Spam-Status:X-Spam-Check-By:Received:Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:X-MC-Unique:Content-Type:X-IsSubscribed:Mailing-List:Precedence:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:Sender:Delivered-To; b=ypAKuj52xqsdD1qQH4Bz4HuFmYGdoGbbXdalektxJiK1GpLIXKDt7HFenoB3xR 59vEFoOsdQqRqKIG9n77O89VIX9aoFSLXmkliudpL2OuWu6WdAEvbVtmuu8pzdD1 EKxRLp/IJbW+vpaLFEXYxtz94l244skkqtGZlkXOXOIXw=; Received: (qmail 31168 invoked by alias); 22 Oct 2012 03:05:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 31154 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Oct 2012 03:05:49 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL, BAYES_40, KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from service87.mimecast.com (HELO service87.mimecast.com) (91.220.42.44) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 03:05:39 +0000 Received: from cam-owa1.Emea.Arm.com (fw-tnat.cambridge.arm.com [217.140.96.21]) by service87.mimecast.com; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 04:05:37 +0100 Received: from Binsh02 ([10.1.255.212]) by cam-owa1.Emea.Arm.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Mon, 22 Oct 2012 04:05:35 +0100 From: "Bin Cheng" To: Subject: [PATCH GCC]Fix test case failure reported in PR54989 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:00:08 +0800 Message-ID: <001d01cdb001$59be9310$0d3bb930$@cheng@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MC-Unique: 112102204053700201 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Hi, The test case "gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/hoist-register-pressure.c" is failed on x86_64-apple-darwin because it uses more registers than x86_64-linux. This can be fixed by simplifying the case using fewer registers. Tested on x86_64-apple-darwin/x86_64-linux, is it OK? Thanks gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog 2012-10-22 Bin Cheng * gcc.dg/hoist-register-pressure.c: Simplify the case by using fewer registers. Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/hoist-register-pressure.c =================================================================== --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/hoist-register-pressure.c (revision 192604) +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/hoist-register-pressure.c (working copy) @@ -13,13 +13,14 @@ because its rtx_cost is too small. */ if (z) { - a[1] = a[0] + a[2]; - a[2] = a[1] + a[3]; - a[3] = a[2] + a[4]; - a[4] = a[3] + a[5]; - a[5] = a[4] + a[6]; - a[6] = a[5] + a[7]; - a[7] = a[6] + a[8]; + a[1] = a[0]; + a[2] = a[1]; + a[3] = a[3]; + a[4] = a[5]; + a[5] = a[7]; + a[6] = a[11]; + a[7] = a[13]; + a[8] = a[17]; com (x+y); } else