On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 5:44 AM H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 6:18 PM Peter Bergner <berg...@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > On 9/30/18 7:57 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > > > This caused: > > > > > > FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr63527.c scan-assembler-not movl[ \t]%[^,]+, %ebx > > > FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr63534.c scan-assembler-not movl[ \t]%[^,]+, %ebx > > > FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr64317.c scan-assembler addl[ > > > \\t]+[$]_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_, %ebx > > > FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr64317.c scan-assembler movl[ > > > \\t]+c@GOTOFF[(]%ebx[)] > > > > Can you check whether the new generated code is at least as good > > as the old generated code? I'm assuming the code we generate now isn't > > wrong, just different and maybe we just need to change what we expect > > to see. > > I checked gcc.target/i386/pr63527.c and it has a regression. > > Before: > > 00000000 <foo>: > 0: 53 push %ebx > 1: e8 fc ff ff ff call 2 <foo+0x2> > 6: 81 c3 02 00 00 00 add $0x2,%ebx > c: 83 ec 08 sub $0x8,%esp > f: e8 fc ff ff ff call 10 <foo+0x10> > 14: e8 fc ff ff ff call 15 <foo+0x15> > 19: 83 c4 08 add $0x8,%esp > 1c: 5b pop %ebx > 1d: c3 ret > > Disassembly of section .text.__x86.get_pc_thunk.bx: > > 00000000 <__x86.get_pc_thunk.bx>: > 0: 8b 1c 24 mov (%esp),%ebx > 3: c3 ret > > After: > > 00000000 <foo>: > 0: 56 push %esi > 1: e8 fc ff ff ff call 2 <foo+0x2> > 6: 81 c6 02 00 00 00 add $0x2,%esi > c: 53 push %ebx > d: 83 ec 04 sub $0x4,%esp > 10: 89 f3 mov %esi,%ebx > 12: e8 fc ff ff ff call 13 <foo+0x13> > 17: e8 fc ff ff ff call 18 <foo+0x18> > 1c: 83 c4 04 add $0x4,%esp > 1f: 5b pop %ebx > 20: 5e pop %esi > 21: c3 ret > > Disassembly of section .text.__x86.get_pc_thunk.si: > > 00000000 <__x86.get_pc_thunk.si>: > 0: 8b 34 24 mov (%esp),%esi > 3: c3 ret >
You may have undone: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=218059 -- H.J.
