but anyway, I don't have a strong opinion for either way, just go
ahead no matter which one you choose.
On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 11:28 AM Kito Cheng <kito.ch...@sifive.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry for the late comment after Jeff say ok, but I guess we may
> consider add "-fno-schedule-insns -fno-schedule-insns2" to avoid
> disturbing from schedule like some of our test case in
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/rvv?
>
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 9:12 AM Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/12/23 07:06, Christoph Muellner wrote:
> > > From: Christoph Müllner <christoph.muell...@vrull.eu>
> > >
> > > Fixes: c1bc7513b1d7 ("RISC-V: const: hide mvconst splitter from IRA")
> > >
> > > A recent change broke the xtheadcondmov-indirect tests, because the order
> > > of
> > > emitted instructions changed. Since the test is too strict when testing
> > > for
> > > a fixed instruction order, let's change the tests to simply count
> > > instruction,
> > > like it is done for similar tests.
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Patrick O'Neill <patr...@rivosinc.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Müllner <christoph.muell...@vrull.eu>
> > >
> > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> > >
> > > * gcc.target/riscv/xtheadcondmov-indirect.c: Make robust against
> > > instruction reordering.
> > OK for the trunk.
> >
> > jeff
