Hi Torbjörn,
On 9/3/24 11:30, Torbjörn SVENSSON wrote:
Ok for trunk and releases/gcc-14?
--
Some of the test cases were scanning for "bti", but it would,
incorrectly, match the ".arch_extenssion pacbti".
Also, keep test cases active if a supported Cortex-M core is supplied.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.target/arm/bti-1.c: Enable for Cortex-M(52|55|85) and
check for \tbti.
* gcc.target/arm/bti-2.c: Likewise.
* gcc.target/arm/pac-15.c: Likewise.
For pac-15.c, your patch only enables the test for cortex-m{52|55|85},
there's not scan-assembler for bti :-)
* gcc.target/arm/pac-4.c: Check for \tbti.
* gcc.target/arm/pac-6.c: Likewise.
Signed-off-by: Torbjörn SVENSSON <torbjorn.svens...@foss.st.com>
Co-authored-by: Yvan ROUX <yvan.r...@foss.st.com>
---
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/bti-1.c | 4 ++--
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/bti-2.c | 4 ++--
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pac-15.c | 2 +-
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pac-4.c | 2 +-
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pac-6.c | 2 +-
5 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/bti-1.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/bti-1.c
index 79dd8010d2d..70a62b5a70c 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/bti-1.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/bti-1.c
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
/* Check that GCC does bti instruction. */
/* { dg-do compile } */
-/* { dg-skip-if "avoid conflicting multilib options" { *-*-* } { "-marm"
"-mcpu=*" } } */
+/* { dg-skip-if "avoid conflicting multilib options" { *-*-* } { "-marm" "-mcpu=*" } {
"-mcpu=cortex-m52*" "-mcpu=cortex-m55*" "-mcpu=cortex-m85*" } } */
I'm not sure this is the way forward, but I'll let Richard comment.
/* { dg-options "-march=armv8.1-m.main -mthumb -mfloat-abi=softfp
-mbranch-protection=bti --save-temps" } */
int
@@ -9,4 +9,4 @@ main (void)
return 0;
}
-/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "bti" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "\tbti" } } */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/bti-2.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/bti-2.c
index 33910563849..44c04d3df68 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/bti-2.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/bti-2.c
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* -Os to create jump table. */
/* { dg-options "-Os" } */
-/* { dg-skip-if "avoid conflicting multilib options" { *-*-* } { "-marm"
"-mcpu=*" } } */
+/* { dg-skip-if "avoid conflicting multilib options" { *-*-* } { "-marm" "-mcpu=*" } {
"-mcpu=cortex-m52*" "-mcpu=cortex-m55*" "-mcpu=cortex-m85*" } } */
/* { dg-options "-march=armv8.1-m.main -mthumb -mfloat-abi=softfp
-mbranch-protection=bti --save-temps" } */
extern int f1 (void);
@@ -55,4 +55,4 @@ lab2:
return 2;
}
-/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "bti" 15 } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "\tbti" 15 } } */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pac-15.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pac-15.c
index e1054902955..a2582e64d0a 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pac-15.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pac-15.c
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
/* Check that GCC does .save and .cfi_offset directives with RA_AUTH_CODE
pseudo hard-register. */
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-require-effective-target mbranch_protection_ok } */
-/* { dg-skip-if "avoid conflicting multilib options" { *-*-* } { "-marm"
"-mcpu=*" } } */
+/* { dg-skip-if "avoid conflicting multilib options" { *-*-* } { "-marm" "-mcpu=*" } {
"-mcpu=cortex-m52*" "-mcpu=cortex-m55*" "-mcpu=cortex-m85*" } } */
/* { dg-options "-march=armv8.1-m.main+mve+pacbti -mbranch-protection=pac-ret
-mthumb -mfloat-abi=hard -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -g -O0" } */
#include "stdio.h"
How about
-/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "pac ip, lr, sp" 3 } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "\tpac\tip, lr, sp" 3 } } */
?
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pac-4.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pac-4.c
index cf915cdba50..81907079d77 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pac-4.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pac-4.c
@@ -5,6 +5,6 @@
#include "pac.h"
-/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "\tbti\t" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "\tbti" } } */
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "\tpac\t" } } */
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "\tpacbti\t" } } */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pac-6.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pac-6.c
index c5329f0ef48..15260c5c028 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pac-6.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pac-6.c
@@ -15,4 +15,4 @@ int bar()
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "pac\tip, lr, sp" } } */
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "aut\tip, lr, sp" } } */
Why not prefix those two with '\t' too?
-/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "bti" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "\tbti" } } */
In all pac-*.c tests, I noticed many scan-assembler directives without
leading '\t' (for pac, aut, pacbti instructions for instance).
Shouldn't we add it there too?
Thanks,
Christophe
