diff mbox

[AArch64,testsuite] PR63971: Revert test_frame_* patch.

Message ID 54B65817.3070104@arm.com
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Tejas Belagod Jan. 14, 2015, 11:50 a.m. UTC
Hi,

As agreed here (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63971), 
please can I reverse Andrew's patch 
out(https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg02916.html)?

Tested on aarch64-none-elf, test_frame_* pass.

Thanks,
Tejas.

Changelog:

gcc/testsuite/

2015-01-14  Tejas Belagod  <tejas.belagod@arm.com>

	PR target/63971
	* gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_1.c: Revert to 3 loads of x30
	in epilogue.
	* gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_6.c: Likewise.
	* gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_2.c: Revert to 2 pair loads of
	x30 and x19 (in the epilogue).
	* gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_4.c: Likewise.
	* gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_7.c: Likewise.

Comments

Mike Stump Jan. 15, 2015, 4:18 p.m. UTC | #1
On Jan 14, 2015, at 3:50 AM, Tejas Belagod <tejas.belagod@arm.com> wrote:
> As agreed here (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63971), please can I reverse Andrew's patch out(https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg02916.html)?

Ok.

Unless someone objects to a reversion like this, when the author of a patch says it should be reverted…  that’s all the approval it needs, though, people can always ask for a review for any reason they want.
Andrew Pinski Jan. 19, 2015, 8:53 a.m. UTC | #2
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2015, at 3:50 AM, Tejas Belagod <tejas.belagod@arm.com> wrote:
>> As agreed here (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63971), please can I reverse Andrew's patch out(https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg02916.html)?
>
> Ok.
>
> Unless someone objects to a reversion like this, when the author of a patch says it should be reverted…  that’s all the approval it needs, though, people can always ask for a review for any reason they want.

And now this reversal needs to be reverted.  Because the conditional
compare optimization went back in.  I figured the optimization would
go back in and that is why I did not act on reverting my patch that
fast.  The conditional compare patch went in a day after this reversal
went in ;).

Thanks,
Andrew
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_1.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_1.c
index b270bae..5b3c0ab 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_1.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_1.c
@@ -14,6 +14,6 @@  t_frame_pattern (test1, 200, )
 t_frame_run (test1)
 
 /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "str\tx30, \\\[sp, -\[0-9\]+\\\]!" 2 } } */
-/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "ldr\tx30, \\\[sp\\\], \[0-9\]+" 2 } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "ldr\tx30, \\\[sp\\\], \[0-9\]+" 3 } } */
 
 /* { dg-final { cleanup-saved-temps } } */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_2.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_2.c
index 59a089c..6ec4088 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_2.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_2.c
@@ -15,6 +15,6 @@  t_frame_run (test2)
 
 
 /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "stp\tx19, x30, \\\[sp, -\[0-9\]+\\\]!" 1 } } */
-/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "ldp\tx19, x30, \\\[sp\\\], \[0-9\]+" 1 } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "ldp\tx19, x30, \\\[sp\\\], \[0-9\]+" 2 } } */
 
 /* { dg-final { cleanup-saved-temps } } */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_4.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_4.c
index d717862..ebfb290 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_4.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_4.c
@@ -14,6 +14,6 @@  t_frame_pattern (test4, 400, "x19")
 t_frame_run (test4)
 
 /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "stp\tx19, x30, \\\[sp, -\[0-9\]+\\\]!" 1 } } */
-/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "ldp\tx19, x30, \\\[sp\\\], \[0-9\]+" 1 } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "ldp\tx19, x30, \\\[sp\\\], \[0-9\]+" 2 } } */
 
 /* { dg-final { cleanup-saved-temps } } */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_6.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_6.c
index b66ce09..b5ea7ee 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_6.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_6.c
@@ -15,6 +15,6 @@  t_frame_pattern (test6, 700, )
 t_frame_run (test6)
 
 /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "str\tx30, \\\[sp, -\[0-9\]+\\\]!" 2 } } */
-/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "ldr\tx30, \\\[sp\\\], \[0-9\]+" 2 } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "ldr\tx30, \\\[sp\\\], \[0-9\]+" 3 } } */
 
 /* { dg-final { cleanup-saved-temps } } */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_7.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_7.c
index 22576c4..daa1f42 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_7.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_7.c
@@ -15,6 +15,6 @@  t_frame_pattern (test7, 700, "x19")
 t_frame_run (test7)
 
 /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "stp\tx19, x30, \\\[sp, -\[0-9\]+\\\]!" 1 } } */
-/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "ldp\tx19, x30, \\\[sp\\\], \[0-9\]+" 1 } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "ldp\tx19, x30, \\\[sp\\\], \[0-9\]+" 2 } } */
 
 /* { dg-final { cleanup-saved-temps } } */