On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 08:40:22AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 6:33 AM, Alan Modra <amo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 05:34:17PM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> > Hi!
> >> >
> >> > rs6000_expand_atomic_compare_and_swap uses oldval directly in
> >> > a comparison instruction, but oldval might be a CONST_INT not suitable
> >> > for the instruction (such as in the testcase below in SImode comparison
> >> > 0x8000 constant). We need to force those into register if they don't
> >> > satisfy the predicate.
> >> >
> >> > Bootstrapped/regtested on powerpc64{,le}-linux, ok for trunk?
> >> >
> >> > 2016-02-03 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
> >> >
> >> > PR target/69644
> >> > * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_expand_atomic_compare_and_swap):
> >> > Force oldval into register if it does not satisfy
> >> > reg_or_short_operand
> >> > predicate. Fix up formatting.
> >> >
> >> > * gcc.dg/pr69644.c: New test.
> >>
> >> Okay.
> >
> > This needs to go on gcc-5 and gcc-4.9 branches too, where it fixes
> > pr69146. pr69146 and pr69644 are dups. OK to apply to the branches?
>
> Okay with me, but coordinate with Jakub.
Ok with me to, just don't have spare cycles now to bootstrap/regtest it.
So, Alan, if you could do that, it would be greatly appreciated.
Jakub
