| Message ID | CAHso6sNkyz3m7xU8FtArMmCW_nJY4WCzePdQpn_SQEmvErbwmg@mail.gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | RISC-V: Fix stack_save_restore_1/2 test cases | expand |
Hi Jivan, On 8/24/23 08:45, Jivan Hakobyan via Gcc-patches wrote: > This patch fixes failing stack_save_restore_1/2 test cases. > After 6619b3d4c15c commit size of the frame was changed. > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > * gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore_1.c: Update frame size > * gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore_2.c: Likewise. Do you mind sending your patches inline using git send-email or some such ? Thx, -Vineet
Hi Vineet. Do you mind sending your patches inline using git send-email or some such ? Never thought about that, what is the purpose of sending it in that way? Of course, if it is more convenient for the community then I will send through git. On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 9:12 AM Vineet Gupta <vineetg@rivosinc.com> wrote: > Hi Jivan, > > On 8/24/23 08:45, Jivan Hakobyan via Gcc-patches wrote: > > This patch fixes failing stack_save_restore_1/2 test cases. > > After 6619b3d4c15c commit size of the frame was changed. > > > > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > * gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore_1.c: Update frame size > > * gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore_2.c: Likewise. > > Do you mind sending your patches inline using git send-email or some such ? > > Thx, > -Vineet >
On 8/24/23 09:45, Jivan Hakobyan via Gcc-patches wrote: > Subject: > RISC-V: Fix stack_save_restore_1/2 test cases > From: > Jivan Hakobyan via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> > Date: > 8/24/23, 09:45 > > To: > GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, Jeff Law <jlaw@ventanamicro.com> > > > This patch fixes failing stack_save_restore_1/2 test cases. > After 6619b3d4c15c commit size of the frame was changed. > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > * gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore_1.c: Update frame size > * gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore_2.c: Likewise. Rather than use specific values for the size of the stack in this test, can we match something a little more general so that we're not constantly having to come back and adjust the stack offset? I'm not real familiar with the check-function-bodies capabilities, but I suspect we can probably use a regexp like [0-9]+ rather than 2016, 2032, etc. Jeff
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore_1.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore_1.c index 255ce5f40c9e300cbcc245d69a045bed2b65d02b..0bf64bac767203685ec88c72394ada617d6940d5 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore_1.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore_1.c @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ float getf(); /* ** bar: ** call t0,__riscv_save_(3|4) -** addi sp,sp,-2032 +** addi sp,sp,-2016 ** ... ** li t0,-12288 ** add sp,sp,t0 @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ float getf(); ** li t0,12288 ** add sp,sp,t0 ** ... -** addi sp,sp,2032 +** addi sp,sp,2016 ** tail __riscv_restore_(3|4) */ int bar() diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore_2.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore_2.c index 4ce5e0118a499136f625c0333c71e98417014851..f076a68613006e19d8110e975391299e48e89441 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore_2.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore_2.c @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ float getf(); /* ** bar: ** call t0,__riscv_save_(3|4) -** addi sp,sp,-2032 +** addi sp,sp,-2016 ** ... ** li t0,-12288 ** add sp,sp,t0 @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ float getf(); ** li t0,12288 ** add sp,sp,t0 ** ... -** addi sp,sp,2032 +** addi sp,sp,2016 ** tail __riscv_restore_(3|4) */ int bar()
This patch fixes failing stack_save_restore_1/2 test cases. After 6619b3d4c15c commit size of the frame was changed. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: * gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore_1.c: Update frame size * gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore_2.c: Likewise.