| Message ID | 5476F6F0.4020103@arm.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 27/11/14 10:03, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > On 26/11/14 10:14, Christophe Lyon wrote: >> Hi Kyrill, > Hi Christophe, > >> >> On 21 November 2014 at 16:52, Marcus Shawcroft >> <marcus.shawcroft@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 17 November 2014 17:35, Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo.tkachov@arm.com> wrote: >>> >>>> 2014-11-17 Kyrylo Tkachov <kyrylo.tkachov@arm.com> >>>> >>>> * config/aarch64/arm_neon.h (vsqrt_f64): New intrinsic. >>>> >>>> 2014-11-17 Kyrylo Tkachov <kyrylo.tkachov@arm.com> >>>> >>>> * gcc.target/aarch64/simd/vsqrt_f64_1.c >>> OK /Marcus >> Your new test fails at the scan-assembly step because all the code is >> optimized away (even at -O1). > Sorry about that, I could have sworn I saw it pass when I initially > wrote it... > In any case, I've committed this patch (r218117) as obvious to mark one > of the variables as volatile > to make sure it's not optimised away. > I've confirmed that the scan-assembler test fails without this patch and > passes with it. With the following ChangeLog for completeness sake: 2014-11-27 Kyrylo Tkachov <kyrylo.tkachov@arm.com> * gcc.target/aarch64/simd/vsqrt_f64_1.c: Mark variable volatile. > > Thanks, > Kyrill > >> Christophe. > >
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/simd/vsqrt_f64_1.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/simd/vsqrt_f64_1.c index 57fb6bb..7f99bd5 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/simd/vsqrt_f64_1.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/simd/vsqrt_f64_1.c @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ extern void abort (void); int main (void) { - float64x1_t in = vcreate_f64(0x3febd3e560634d7bULL); + volatile float64x1_t in = vcreate_f64(0x3febd3e560634d7bULL); float64x1_t result = vsqrt_f64 (in); float64_t expected = 0.9325321502142351;