On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Dominique Dhumieres
wrote:
>> PS. IIRC some previous discussions around such darwin peculiarities
>> the f? decoration may be too simplistic to cover all the powerpc
>> flavors (A. Pinski may know better).
>
> I have found the links for that: r168960 (pr41146). A.
> PS. IIRC some previous discussions around such darwin peculiarities
> the f? decoration may be too simplistic to cover all the powerpc
> flavors (A. Pinski may know better).
I have found the links for that: r168960 (pr41146). A. Pinski asked to
add %?. I don't know which ppc platform uses it and
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 01:40:09PM -0600, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> commit 61ceeb130c2c2c342f19e716397ffddd212a0b32
> Author: Aldy Hernandez
> Date: Thu Jan 10 11:58:37 2013 -0600
>
> PR target/55565
> * gcc.target/powerpc/ppc-mov-1.c: Update scan-assembler-not
> regex.
Ok with
On 01/10/13 12:58, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
Hi,
AFAIU the regexps, they are not doing what they are supposed to do
on powerpc-apple-darwin9: the assembly reads
fmr f1,f0
i.e., fmr \[0-9\]+ or fmr 1 are never found.
If I use "fmr f?\[0-9\]+,f?\[0-9\]+", then the test fails,
in line w
Hi,
AFAIU the regexps, they are not doing what they are supposed to do
on powerpc-apple-darwin9: the assembly reads
fmr f1,f0
i.e., fmr \[0-9\]+ or fmr 1 are never found.
If I use "fmr f?\[0-9\]+,f?\[0-9\]+", then the test fails,
in line with the other powerpc.
If I use "lfd \(f?\[0-9\]
