On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 12:29 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 12:22 PM, FX <fxcoud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This looks wrong. This test should pass for 64-bit or ia32 && nonpic.
>>
>> It was Kai’s original testcase, so I don’t want to modify it too much, other
>> than make it skip where it clearly fails.
>>
>
> Original bug report was filed against x86-64:
>
> The attached testcase is a greatly reduced interpreter loop,
> containing a simple load and indirect branch:
>
> goto *addresses[*pc++]
>
> gcc 4.8.2 (as well as older versions) with -O2 produces the following
> x86-64 output:
>
> movq addresses.1721(,%rax,8), %rax
> jmp *%rax
>
> Since the loaded value is not used after the branch, there's no need
> to hold it in a register, so the load could be folded into the branch.
> This would improve code size and instruction count.
>
> Add a testcase only for ia32 makes no senses at all.
>
I checked in this to run it on non-x32 targets.
H.J.
---
Index: ChangeLog
===================================================================
--- ChangeLog (revision 217612)
+++ ChangeLog (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
+2014-11-15 H.J. Lu <hongjiu...@intel.com>
+
+ * gcc.target/i386/sibcall-1.c: Don't run on x32 targets,
+ instead of run on ia32 targets.
+
2014-11-15 Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com>
PR middle-end/63884
Index: gcc.target/i386/sibcall-1.c
===================================================================
--- gcc.target/i386/sibcall-1.c (revision 217612)
+++ gcc.target/i386/sibcall-1.c (working copy)
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-/* { dg-do compile { target { ia32 && nonpic } } } */
+/* { dg-do compile { target { { ! x32 } && nonpic } } } */
/* { dg-options "-O2" } */
extern int (*foo)(int);
--
H.J.
