Hi Christophe, Alexandre, Andrew and Richard,
Sorry for the very late reply. I've been occupied with other tasks than
GCC for the past 3 months.
On 2025-05-20 09:56, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 at 06:30, Alexandre Oliva <ol...@adacore.com> wrote:
(The backport I've only just posted is not enough for the tests to pass;
there's another problem)
r14-10824 is a backport of r15-4549, that rewrote and extended into
check-function-bodies the save/restore expectations introduced in
r15-2160. Alas, r15-2160 mentions an insn_propagation patch that
enables those specific save/restore insns to be generated, presumably
r15-1945, and this change is not present in gcc-14, so we get
different save/restore insns, and the test fails, even after
backporting r15-1035, that allows for single-character function names
in check-function-bodies.
I thought Torbjorn had tested this on gcc-14 and needed it to have
cleaner results,
but https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-November/667448.html
indicates we already noticed the failure some time ago...
I must have messed up when I tested this with gcc-14 and I've apparently
also missed the ping from Andrew back in Nov. Really sorry.
Drop the save/restore checks that don't belong in gcc-14.
Tested with gcc-14 on arm-vxworks7r2. Ok to install in gcc-14?
for gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
* gcc.target/arm/fp16-aapcs-1.c: Drop save/restore checks.
* gcc.target/arm/fp16-aapcs-2.c: Likewise.
* gcc.target/arm/fp16-aapcs-3.c: Likewise.
* gcc.target/arm/fp16-aapcs-4.c: Likewise.
---
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/fp16-aapcs-1.c | 7 ++-----
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/fp16-aapcs-2.c | 8 --------
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/fp16-aapcs-3.c | 7 ++-----
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/fp16-aapcs-4.c | 8 --------
4 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/fp16-aapcs-1.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/fp16-aapcs-1.c
index b18d7cda65c8d..450c52fcd5c6c 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/fp16-aapcs-1.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/fp16-aapcs-1.c
@@ -29,10 +29,8 @@ Below block is for non-armv8.1
** ...
** vmov\.f32 s0, \2
** )
-** vstr\.32 s2, \[sp, #4\] @ int
+** ...
** bl swap
-** vldr\.32 s2, \[sp, #4\] @ int
-** vmov\.f32 s0, s2
** |
@@ -50,9 +48,8 @@ Below block is for armv8.1
** ...
** vmov s0, \4 @ __fp16
** )
-** vstr\.32 s2, \[sp, #4\] @ int
+** ...
** bl swap
-** vldr\.16 s0, \[sp, #4\]
** )
** ...
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/fp16-aapcs-2.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/fp16-aapcs-2.c
index 48510e895368d..c15f29dd3e44b 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/fp16-aapcs-2.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/fp16-aapcs-2.c
@@ -28,14 +28,6 @@ swap (__fp16, __fp16);
** )
** ...
*/
-/*
-** F: { target arm_little_endian }
-** ...
-** str r2, \[sp, #4\]
-** bl swap
-** ldrh r0, \[sp, #4\] @ __fp16
Is it expected that you also remove the 'bl swap' part?
I think it's fine to remove the entire block since the 'bl swap' is
checked in the other block.
-** ...
-*/
__fp16
F (__fp16 a, __fp16 b, __fp16 c)
{
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/fp16-aapcs-3.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/fp16-aapcs-3.c
index 7238ef3a02e03..1102dc7344919 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/fp16-aapcs-3.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/fp16-aapcs-3.c
@@ -29,10 +29,8 @@ Below block is for non-armv8.1
** ...
** vmov\.f32 s0, \2
** )
-** vstr\.32 s2, \[sp, #4\] @ int
+** ...
** bl swap
-** vldr\.32 s2, \[sp, #4\] @ int
-** vmov\.f32 s0, s2
** |
@@ -50,9 +48,8 @@ Below block is for armv8.1
** ...
** vmov s0, \4
** )
-** vstr\.32 s2, \[sp, #4\] @ int
+** ...
** bl swap
-** vldr\.16 s0, \[sp, #4\]
** )
** ...
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/fp16-aapcs-4.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/fp16-aapcs-4.c
index 13f08d8afa32d..00a44d15129a8 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/fp16-aapcs-4.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/fp16-aapcs-4.c
@@ -28,14 +28,6 @@ swap (__fp16, __fp16);
** )
** ...
*/
-/*
-** F: { target arm_little_endian }
-** ...
-** str r2, \[sp, #4\]
-** bl swap
-** ldrh r0, \[sp, #4\] @ __fp16
Same question here?
I think it's fine to remove the entire block since the 'bl swap' is
checked in the other block.
@Richard: Do you think there is any reason to not include this on
releases/gcc-14?
Kind regards,
Torbjörn
