> On 19/11/14 09:29, Yangfei (Felix) wrote:
> >>> Sorry for missing the point. It seems to me that 't2' here will
> >>> conflict with
> >> condition of the pattern *movhi_insn_arch4:
> >>> "TARGET_ARM
> >>> && arm_arch4
> >>> && (register_operand (operands[0], HImode)
> >>> || register_operand (operands[1], HImode))"
> >>>
> >>> #define TARGET_ARM (! TARGET_THUMB)
> >>> /* 32-bit Thumb-2 code. */
> >>> #define TARGET_THUMB2 (TARGET_THUMB &&
> >> arm_arch_thumb2)
> >>>
> >>
> >> Bah, Indeed ! - I misremembered the t2 there, my mistake.
> >>
> >> Yes you are right there, but what I'd like you to do is to use that
> >> mechanism rather than putting all this logic in the predicate.
> >>
> >> So, I'd prefer you to add a v6t2 to the values for the "arch"
> >> attribute, don't forget to update the comments above.
> >>
> >> and in arch_enabled you need to enforce this with
> >>
> >> (and (eq_attr "arch" "v6t2")
> >> (match_test "TARGET_32BIT && arm_arch6 &&
> arm_arch_thumb2"))
> >> (const_string "yes")
> >>
> >> And in the pattern use v6t2 ...
> >>
> >> arm_arch_thumb2 implies that this is at the architecture level of v6t2.
> >> Therefore TARGET_ARM && arm_arch_thumb2 implies ARM state.
> >
> >
> > Hi Ramana,
> > Thank you for your suggestions. I rebased the patch on the latest
> > trunk
> and updated it accordingly.
> > As this patch will not work for architectures older than armv6t2, I
> > also
> prefer Thomas's patch to fix for them.
> > I am currently performing test for this patch. Assuming no issues pops
> up, OK for the trunk?
> > And is it necessary to backport this patch to the 4.8 & 4.9 branches?
> >
>
> I've applied the following as obvious after Kugan mentioned on IRC this
> morning
> noticing a movwne r0, #-32768. Obviously this won't be accepted as is by the
> assembler and we should be using the %L character. Applied to trunk as
> obvious.
>
> Felix, How did you test this patch ?
>
> regards
> Ramana
I regtested the patch for arm-eabi-gcc/g++ & big-endian with qemu. The test
result is OK. That's strange ...
This issue can be reproduced by the following testcase. Thanks for fixing it.
#include <stdio.h>
unsigned short v = 0x5678;
int i;
int j = 0;
int *ptr = &j;
int func()
{
for (i = 0; i < 1; ++i)
{
*ptr = -1;
v = 0xF234;
}
return v;
}
>
> 2014-11-20 Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana.radhakrish...@arm.com>
>
> PR target/59593
> * config/arm/arm.md (*movhi_insn): Use right formatting
> for immediate.
