On 3/30/17 12:54 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 3/30/17 12:15 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>>>> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "drintn\\." } } */
>>>>> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "drintnq\\." } } */
>>>>> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "dctfix" } } */
>>>>> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "dctfixq" } } */
>>>>
>>>> If there is no "dctfix" there surely is no "dctfixq" either (i.e., your
>>>> regexen aren't very tight).
>>>
>>> Ahh, true. I suppose I could also just look for "drintn" too,
>>> since that would catch both drintn. and drintnq., ok with that
>>> change?
>>
>> Please add a comment what instructions each regex is supposed to match, then?
>> Okay with such a change.
>
> Actually, the following is probably better. I'll go with this unless
> you object.
>
> /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "drintn\[q\]\." } } */
> /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "dctfix\[q\]" } } */
> /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "dcffix\[q\]" } } */
Ok, committed the above change to trunk and GCC 6 and GCC5 release
branches, along with a comment like you wanted. Thanks.
Peter
