I guess you may also want to clean up those bodies for "check-function-bodies"?

On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 3:47 PM Christoph Muellner
<christoph.muell...@vrull.eu> wrote:
>
> From: Christoph Müllner <christoph.muell...@vrull.eu>
>
> Fixes: c1bc7513b1d7 ("RISC-V: const: hide mvconst splitter from IRA")
>
> A recent change broke the xtheadcondmov-indirect tests, because the order of
> emitted instructions changed. Since the test is too strict when testing for
> a fixed instruction order, let's change the tests to simply count instruction,
> like it is done for similar tests.
>
> Reported-by: Patrick O'Neill <patr...@rivosinc.com>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Müllner <christoph.muell...@vrull.eu>
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
>         * gcc.target/riscv/xtheadcondmov-indirect.c: Make robust against
>         instruction reordering.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Müllner <christoph.muell...@vrull.eu>
> ---
>  .../gcc.target/riscv/xtheadcondmov-indirect.c         | 11 ++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/xtheadcondmov-indirect.c 
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/xtheadcondmov-indirect.c
> index c3253ba5239..eba1b86137b 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/xtheadcondmov-indirect.c
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/xtheadcondmov-indirect.c
> @@ -1,8 +1,7 @@
>  /* { dg-do compile } */
> -/* { dg-options "-march=rv32gc_xtheadcondmov -fno-sched-pressure" { target { 
> rv32 } } } */
> -/* { dg-options "-march=rv64gc_xtheadcondmov -fno-sched-pressure" { target { 
> rv64 } } } */
> +/* { dg-options "-march=rv32gc_xtheadcondmov" { target { rv32 } } } */
> +/* { dg-options "-march=rv64gc_xtheadcondmov" { target { rv64 } } } */
>  /* { dg-skip-if "" { *-*-* } {"-O0" "-Os" "-Og" "-Oz" "-flto" } } */
> -/* { dg-final { check-function-bodies "**" "" } } */
>
>  /*
>  ** ConEmv_imm_imm_reg:
> @@ -116,3 +115,9 @@ int ConNmv_reg_reg_reg(int x, int y, int z, int n)
>      return z;
>    return n;
>  }
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "addi\t" 5 } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "li\t" 4 } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "sub\t" 4 } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "th.mveqz\t" 4 } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "th.mvnez\t" 4 } } */
> --
> 2.41.0
>

Reply via email to