Hi,
I've noticed a "regression" of AArch64's noplt_3.c in the gcc-6-branch
because my validation script adds the branch name to gcc/REVISION.
As a result scan-assembler-times "br" also matched "gcc-6-branch",
hence the failure.
The small attached patch replaces "br" by "br\t" to fix the problem.
I've also made a similar change to tail_indirect_call_1 although the
problem did not happen for this test because it uses scan-assembler
instead of scan-assembler-times. I think it's better to make it more
robust too.
OK?
Christophe
2016-05-02 Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org>
* gcc.target/aarch64/noplt_3.c: Scan for "br\t".
* gcc.target/aarch64/tail_indirect_call_1.c: Likewise.
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/noplt_3.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/noplt_3.c
index ef6e65d..a382618 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/noplt_3.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/noplt_3.c
@@ -16,5 +16,5 @@ cal_novalue (int a)
dec (a);
}
-/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "br" 2 } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "br\t" 2 } } */
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "b\t" } } */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/tail_indirect_call_1.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/tail_indirect_call_1.c
index 4759d20..e863323 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/tail_indirect_call_1.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/tail_indirect_call_1.c
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
typedef void FP (int);
-/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "br" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "br\t" } } */
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "blr" } } */
void
f1 (FP fp, int n)
