On 12/02/15 18:38, Mike Stump wrote:
On Feb 11, 2015, at 12:16 PM, Torvald Riegel <trie...@redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 09:10 -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
On Feb 9, 2015, at 7:11 AM, Alex Velenko <alex.vele...@arm.com> wrote:
The following patch makes atomic-op-consume.c XFAIL
Is this patch ok?
Ok.
I’d shorten the comment above the xfail to be exceedingly short:
/* PR59448 consume not implemented yet */
The reason is the brain can process this about 8x faster. Also, one can cut
and paste the PR part into a web browser directly, or, if you have an electric
bugzilla mode for emacs, it will pop right up. */
Given the discussions we had in ISO C++ SG1, it seems the only way to
fix memory_order_consume is to deprecate it (or let it rot forever), and
add something else to the standard. See
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n4321.pdf
Nice paper, thanks.
IOW, I believe the promotion is here to stay. I'm not aware of any
other implementation doing something else.
Thus, XFAIL doesn't seem right to me.
Since Jakub in PR64930 updated to the now expected output instead of xfail, and
given the paper above, easy to agree with this. The changes to remove the
xfail and expect the now expected codegen are pre-approved.
Hi Mike,
As pre-approved trivial change, on Monday I commited the following patch:
gcc/testsuite/
2015-02-16 Alex Velenko <alex.vele...@arm.com>
* gcc.target/aarch64/atomic-op-consume.c (scan-assember-times):
Directive adjusted to scan for ldaxr.
* gcc.target/arm/atomic-op-consume.c (scan-assember-times): Directive
adjusted to scan for ldaex.
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/atomic-op-consume.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/atomic-op-consume.c
index 0e6dbbe..26ebbdf 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/atomic-op-consume.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/atomic-op-consume.c
@@ -3,6 +3,6 @@
#include "atomic-op-consume.x"
-/* PR59448 consume not implemented yet. */
-/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "ldxr\tw\[0-9\]+,
\\\[x\[0-9\]+\\\]" 6 { xfail *-*-* } } } */
+/* Scan for ldaxr is a PR59448 consume workaround. */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "ldaxr\tw\[0-9\]+,
\\\[x\[0-9\]+\\\]" 6 } } */
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "stxr\tw\[0-9\]+, w\[0-9\]+,
\\\[x\[0-9\]+\\\]" 6 } } */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/atomic-op-consume.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/atomic-op-consume.c
index fafe4d6..6c5f989 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/atomic-op-consume.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/atomic-op-consume.c
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
#include "../aarch64/atomic-op-consume.x"
-/* PR59448 consume not implemented yet. */
-/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "ldrex\tr\[0-9\]+,
\\\[r\[0-9\]+\\\]" 6 { xfail *-*-* } } } */
+/* Scan for ldaex is a PR59448 consume workaround. */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "ldaex\tr\[0-9\]+,
\\\[r\[0-9\]+\\\]" 6 } } */
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "strex\t...?, r\[0-9\]+,
\\\[r\[0-9\]+\\\]" 6 } } */
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "dmb" } } */
