On 4/30/24 10:32, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
> Starting with r12-2731-g96146e61cd7aee we do not generate code like
>
> _5 = (unsigned int) c_2(D);
> i_6 = _5 << 8;
> _7 = _5 << 20;
> i_8 = i_6 | _7;
>
> anymore but instead
>
> _5 = (unsigned int) c_2(D);
> _3 = _5 * 1048832;
>
> which leads finally to slightly different assembly code where we
> previously ended up for z10 or newer with
>
> lr %r1,%r2
> sll %r1,8
> rosbg %r1,%r2,32,43,20
> llgfr %r2,%r1
> br %r14
>
> and now
>
> lr %r1,%r2
> sll %r1,12
> ar %r2,%r1
> risbg %r2,%r2,35,128+55,8
> br %r14
>
> The zero-extend materializes via risbg for which the pattern contains an
> "and" which is why the test fails. Thus, instead of scanning for RTL
> expressions rather scan for assembler instructions for s390.
> ---
> Ok for mainline?
Ok. Thanks!
Andreas
>
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/zero_bits_compound-1.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/zero_bits_compound-1.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/zero_bits_compound-1.c
> index e71594911b2..f1e267e0fb0 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/zero_bits_compound-1.c
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/zero_bits_compound-1.c
> @@ -39,4 +39,5 @@ unsigned long bar (unsigned char c)
> }
>
> /* Check that no pattern containing an AND expression was used. */
> -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "\\(and:" } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "\\(and:" { target { ! { s390*-*-* } } }
> } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "\\tng?rk?\\t" { target { s390*-*-* } } }
> } */
