On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Christophe Lyon
<christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 16 January 2015 at 11:54, Marcus Shawcroft
> <marcus.shawcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 15 January 2015 at 18:18, Richard Henderson <r...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/15/2014 12:41 AM, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
>>>> +(define_expand "cmp<mode>"
>>>> + [(set (match_operand 0 "cc_register" "")
>>>> + (match_operator:CC 1 "aarch64_comparison_operator"
>>>> + [(match_operand:GPI 2 "register_operand" "")
>>>> + (match_operand:GPI 3 "aarch64_plus_operand" "")]))]
>>>> + ""
>>>> + "
>>>> + operands[1] = gen_rtx_fmt_ee (COMPARE, SELECT_CC_MODE (GET_CODE
>>>> (operands[1]),
>>>> + operands[2],
>>>> + operands[3]),
>>>> + operands[2], operands[3]);
>>>> + "
>>>> +)
>>>
>>> Use { } not "" for the C portion.
>>>
>>> Otherwise ok.
>>
>> Jiong... this is fine with me. /Marcus
>
> Jiong,
>
> I have noticed regressions on aarch64 after this patch:
>
> See:
> http://abe.tcwglab.linaro.org/logs/validations/cross-validation/gcc/trunk/219723/report-build-info.html
> Passed now fails [PASS => FAIL]:
> gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_1.c scan-assembler-times ldr\tx30,
> \\[sp\\], [0-9]+ 3
> gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_2.c scan-assembler-times ldp\tx19,
> x30, \\[sp\\], [0-9]+ 2
> gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_4.c scan-assembler-times ldp\tx19,
> x30, \\[sp\\], [0-9]+ 2
> gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_6.c scan-assembler-times ldr\tx30,
> \\[sp\\], [0-9]+ 3
> gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_7.c scan-assembler-times ldp\tx19,
> x30, \\[sp\\], [0-9]+ 2
>
> Is this expected?
Yes and now you just have to revert the revert of my patch to fix those.
Thanks,
Andrew
>
> Thanks,
>
> Christophe.
