https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ac829a89fb56cfd914d5e29ed4695e499b0dbc95
commit r14-9399-gac829a89fb56cfd914d5e29ed4695e499b0dbc95
Author: Richard Earnshaw <rearn...@arm.com>
Date: Fri Mar 8 16:23:53 2024 +0000
arm: testsuite: tweak bics_3.c [PR113542]
This test was too simple, which meant that the compiler was sometimes
able to find a better optimization of the code than using a BICS
instruction. Fix this by changing the test slightly to produce a
sequence where BICS should always be the preferred solution.
gcc/testsuite:
PR target/113542
* gcc.target/arm/bics_3.c: Adjust code to something which should
always result in BICS.
Diff:
---
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/bics_3.c | 19 ++++++++-----------
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/bics_3.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/bics_3.c
index e056b264e15..4d6938948a1 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/bics_3.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/bics_3.c
@@ -2,13 +2,11 @@
/* { dg-options "-O2 --save-temps -fno-inline" } */
/* { dg-require-effective-target arm32 } */
-extern void abort (void);
-
int
bics_si_test (int a, int b)
{
- if (a & ~b)
- return 1;
+ if ((a & ~b) >= 0)
+ return 3;
else
return 0;
}
@@ -16,8 +14,8 @@ bics_si_test (int a, int b)
int
bics_si_test2 (int a, int b)
{
- if (a & ~ (b << 2))
- return 1;
+ if ((a & ~ (b << 2)) >= 0)
+ return 3;
else
return 0;
}
@@ -28,13 +26,12 @@ main (void)
int a = 5;
int b = 5;
int c = 20;
- if (bics_si_test (a, b))
- abort ();
- if (bics_si_test2 (c, b))
- abort ();
+ if (bics_si_test (a, b) != 3)
+ __builtin_abort ();
+ if (bics_si_test2 (c, b) != 3)
+ __builtin_abort ();
return 0;
}
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "bics\tr\[0-9\]+, r\[0-9\]+, r\[0-9\]+" 2
} } */
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "bics\tr\[0-9\]+, r\[0-9\]+, r\[0-9\]+,
.sl #2" 1 } } */
-
